Bible Chronology and History

Alan Montgomery

 

AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE EXODUS

BY ALAN MONTGOMERY

Introduction

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn talked about the role of paradigms in the advance of science [Kuhn]. The role of a paradigm is to set the rules and the acceptable methods of scientific research. He pointed out that major advances in science came during periods of paradigm change. Between paradigm changes "normal" science continued to build up knowledge within the accepted paradigm. The shift from geocentric or earth-centered astronomy to heliocentric or sun-centered astronomy is a case in point. In examining the motion of the Sun, moon and stars two models or paradigms were put forth: the geocentric model of Ptolemy and the heliocentric model of Aristarchus. Within each paradigm, the motion of the planets had a different meaning to its adherents. The zigzag motion of the planets in the sky to the geocentrists meant a minor epicycle in its motion around the Earth but to the heliocentrists it meant the Earth was passing the planets as they went around the Sun. Both made the same observations but assigned them different interpretations.

Before Copernicus astronomers assumed planetary orbits were in the ecliptic plane of the Earth and were circular - neither of which is true. Using these assumptions geocentric astronomers made better predictions of the planetary motions. Hoyle states, "...it will be realized that the predictive capacity of the constructions of Ptolemy and Copernicus are very nearly the same. Copernicus' theory becomes superior to Ptolemy's when account is taken of the inclinations of the planetary orbits. [Hoyle, p.79]" Finally, when Kepler assumed the orbits were not circular but elliptical, the data fit perfectly. When astronomers made the correct assumptions about planetary orbits the reality of the heliocentric model was plainly evident and astronomy experienced a paradigm change.

It is important to understand that until the 16th century the geocentric paradigm had dominated on the basis of good science. The paradigm of heliocentrism, although correct, was not accepted because the geocentric calculations from accepted assumptions were better when compared to actual observation - i.e. good science. Prejudices and preconceived ideas were not to blame. The precision of the data was not the problem. The correct paradigm was rejected because it supporters failed to analyze the data using the right assumptions. Here is the lesson. It is possible with the right paradigm taken from the right interpretation of the Scriptures, to analyze the data with bad assumptions and arrive at a bad result that legitimate science ought to reject. Biblicists too easily attribute the rejection of "their" biblical theory to prejudice. They interpret this rejection as anti-God or anti-biblical bias when it is simply good science. They fail to question the assumptions they use to interpret the biblical paradigm.

Rejecting the Biblical Account

Redford, an Egyptologist, is typical of those who hold the biblical account in error concerning the Exodus. He states, "A detailed comparison of this version of the Hebrew takeover of Palestine with the extra-Biblical evidence totally discredits the former. Not only is there a complete absence, as we have seen, in the records of the Egyptian empire of any mention or allusion to such a whirlwind of annihilation, but also Egyptian control over Canaan and the very cities Joshua is supposed to have taken scarcely wavered during the entire period of the Late Bronze Age. "

"Far more damaging, however, than this argument from silence is the archaeological record. Sites such as Hormah, Arad, Jericho, Ai, and Jarmuth had indeed suffered violent destruction, but this had been during the Early Bronze Age or at the end of Middle Bronze and during the Late Bronze Age they had lain unoccupied (save for squatters); others such as Kadesh Barnea, Heshbon, and Gibeon were not to be settled until the Iron Age. Those sites that do show massive destruction at the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age, about 1200 B.C., can as easily be explained as victims of the movement of the Sea Peoples. The regions of Edom and Moab, represented in Numbers as sedentary states, supported only a few cities in the Late Bronze Age maintaining the north-south trade route to Damascus; the Edomite and Moabite kingdoms, which Numbers wrongly understands to be already in existence, did not put in an appearance before the ninth century BC." [Redford, p. 265]

Archaeologists who reject the biblical Exodus have focused their research on non-conquest models. Dever states, "And with new models of indigenous Canaanite origins for early Israel, there is neither place nor need for an Exodus [Dever, p. 67]." They explain the arrival and establishment of the Israelites and the record of their history by one of two non-conquest models. The first model is the infiltration model proposed by Alt. [Alt, A. 1967] and supported by Noth [Noth, M., 1960.] It was reasoned that since there was no change in the cultural artifacts in Israel between the Late Bronze and Iron Age, the Israelites came in gradually, adopting the Canaanite culture as their own. This model fails to explain from where the Israelites infiltrated. Also it assumes that the appearance of the Israelites in the stratigraphy is at the Iron I level. If this assumption proves wrong the entire model quickly collapses. The second model is the internal revolt model advocated by Mendenhall [Mendenhall, G.E.] and Gottwald [Gottwald, N. 1979]. This theory says that the Israelites were a submerged culture in the Canaanite era and revolted against their rule and then fled to the hills and later returned to conquer the lowlands. Lemche [Lemche, N.P. 1985)] and Ahlstrom [Ahlstrom, G., 1986] have also proposed theories along these lines. These theories fail to explain why the Israelites believe that they lived in Egypt for 215 years.

If we are not prepared to reject the historical value of the Exodus account we could respond that Redford is less qualified than God to speak on the matter. Or we could point out the errors of fact - Gibeon was occupied before the Iron Age; or critique his textual interpretation - Edom and Moab in the book of Numbers could be merely nomadic tribal kingdoms; or to challenge his assumptions - the textual misreading that all cities captured in the Conquest should show destruction in the archaeological record. I think, though, the honest investigator has to admit that the Evangelical model of the Exodus is a poor fit to many though not all evidences. I attribute this poor fit to poorly chosen assumptions and mistaken chronologies. With new assumptions and chronologies, a biblical Exodus model can be proposed that fits all the evidence.

Archaeology and the Exodus

The archaeological eras of biblical times are divided into three Bronze ages and an Iron Age. Early Bronze (EB), approximately 2900 - 2300 BC, has three subdivisions. Most refer to the next era, approximately 2300 - 2000 BC, as Middle Bronze I (MB I). Middle Bronze II (MB II) consists of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt and the Hyksos era, 2000 - 1550 BC. The Late Bronze I and II (LB I

and LB II), which covers 1550 - 1200 BC, consists of the New Kingdom's 18th and 19th Dynasties, which reigned over Egyptian empires in Syria and Canaan. After this came the Iron Ages I and II (IA I and IA II), 1200 - 600 BC, in which the Judges, United Kingdom and Divided Kingdom eras in Israel are supposed to have taken place. This is the standard archaeological model among scholars. In this model the Exodus occurs in the 13th century, which is the time of the 19th Dynasty in LB II. Evangelicals reject this model because they believe the conventional biblical chronology supports an Exodus date in the middle of the 15th century, which places the Exodus in the middle of the 18th Dynasty in LB I.

Methodology

Behind the standard Evangelical Exodus model stand four basic assumptions:(Strictly speaking 3. is a conclusion based on the first two)

1. The Exodus is a real historical event.2. Conventional chronologies: biblical and Egyptian are reliable 3. The Exodus occurred in the Late Bronze;4. Any conflict between Egyptian and Assyrian chronologies are resolved in favour of the Egyptian;

According to the book of Exodus the Israelites were pressed into slavery in Goshen in the Nile delta building storehouse cities, Ramesses and Pi-Thom. This indicates a powerful and prosperous Egypt. At the Exodus the plagues destroyed much of Egypt's crops and livestock. Together with the loss of over 600,000 male slaves, the Egyptians would have suffered a serious loss resulting in a major downturn in the Egyptian economy. Then Pharaoh and his army were drowned in the Red Sea. Egypt would be vulnerable to unruly internal elements and external attack resulting in instability. Also, the Pharaoh of the Exodus should lack a mummy and maybe even a tomb [Ex 14; Ps 106:11; Ps 136:15]. The Israelites wandered through the desert for 40 years with no contact with other peoples except for a battle with the Amalekites who were also passing through. The Sinai and the wilderness ought to have no permanent inhabitants at this time. Canaan ought to be inhabited with walled cities in a prosperous land of "milk and honey". Among the walled cities, we ought to find Jericho, Ai and Hazor were burned down. The Israelite invasion would have significantly increased the population and prosperity of the land.

Thus we require a period in archaeology in which all eight situations are manifest: prosperity to impoverishment, social/political instability, the disappearance of Semitic people from the Nile delta, a mummyless pharaoh, an uninhabited Sinai, a prosperous Canaan with walled cities, a burned Jericho and Hazor and finally a significant increase in Canaan's population. In searching the region's archaeology we must be willing to examine the basic assumptions in the conventional thinking and open our minds to the possibility that these assumptions can be changed. It is also important not to reform these assumptions by some arbitrary or insignificant criteria but that biblical, historical, chronological and archaeological evidence should form a unified picture. The assumption that the Exodus is historical will be kept but others will be changed according to requirements of the evidence.

Is the Exodus a Late Bronze Event? - Evangelical View

The Late Bronze 18th Dynasty began with Ahmose I 1552 BC (Conventional Date) drove the Hyksos out of Egypt into Canaan where he besieged them at Sharuhen. About a century later Egypt had gain sufficient power to launch an invasion of the whole of Canaan under Thutmose III, circa 1460 BC. The empire expanded to include most of present day Lebanon and Syria over the next 20 years. This empire lasted for about a century until the famous Tutankhamun circa 1330 BC. Semitic

slaves are well attested during this period but there is no record in Egypt in the 18th Dynasty of any disaster involving the loss of a million slaves, Egyptian agriculture and livestock. It has no writings that express woe or lament for some major disaster. Thus, Egyptian history denies a place for the Exodus in the 18th Dynasty. Some scholars would excuse this lack of written record by suggesting that the Exodus was no inconvenience to the Egyptians and went unrecorded by them as well as their vassal states. But, indeed, the Exodus was a major political, military and economic disaster of the highest order. That it went unnoticed is inconceivable. That it went unrecorded is unlikely in the extreme [Aardsma].

Archaeologists have identified the biblical Rameses with a mound in the region of Qantir named Pi-Rameses and Pithom at either Tell Maskhuta or Tell el-Retabeh. Excavation has revealed that at Pi-Rameses there is no significant activity in the 18th Dynasty. Egyptian archaeology fails to find any significant foreign occupation in Goshen during the 18th Dynasty. Almost all archaeologists and most biblical scholars have dismissed this possibility because of the archaeological evidence relating to the 18th Dynasty does not fit the biblical Exodus and Conquest.

During the early 14th century, in Joshua's time by conventional chronology, there were a number of letters written between Egypt and its vassals and allies. Some of these letters were recovered from the 18th Dynasty royal archive at modern-day el-Amarna. These letters revealed that the cities and states in the Levant were under attack from the Khatti and the 'Habiru' or 'Apiru'. The term 'Habiru' is used derisively as a synonym for bandit. Some Biblicists would like to see this term as an ethnic term referring to the Israelites and equate the 'Habiru' attacks with Joshua's Conquest. This idea although attractive at first has some major drawbacks. (To the Egyptians Edomites, Moabites and Ammonites would also qualify as Hebrews but this does not help identify the Amarna period as the period of the Conquest as these nations were not involved in the fighting the Canaanites).

Some cities attacked by Joshua are among those that corresponded with 18th Dynasty Pharaohs (Amenhotep III, Akhenaten and Tutankhamun) e.g. Jerusalem, Megiddo, Ashkelon, Gezer and Lachish. However, other cities attacked by Joshua have no correspondence, e.g. Jericho, Bethel, Hazor, Hebron, Eglon and Debir. These cities, important during the Conquest, are not important during the Amarna period. Hazor, in particular, appears to have no political or military significance during the Amarna correspondence, yet in Joshua's day, it was the head of the largest coalition of cities in Canaan. Finally, the names of the kings of these cities in the Amarna letters do not match the biblical kings in Joshua or Judges. The King of Jerusalem is Abdi-Heba in the Amarna letters not Adoni-Zedek; (Joshua 10:3) The Amarna letters and their 'Habiru' provide poor correlation to Joshua's Conquest.

Another major problem is that the biblical Canaanites are not given any foreign allies in their wars against the Israelites. The aid sent by the Egyptians to these cities according to the Amarna letters is never mentioned in Joshua or Judges. Indeed, Egyptians, as a significant military force, are not mentioned after the Exodus until the time of Solomon when a pharaoh captured Gezer as a dowry for Solomon's wife. Another difficulty is that the Arameans were a significant power during the 18th Dynasty but during the Conquest they go unmentioned and do not become a significant factor in Israelite history until the time of David.

The final blow to the 18th Dynasty Exodus is that all the mummies of the Pharaohs of that dynasty have been found and identified. It is evident from the examinations of these mummies that none of them drowned in the Red Sea. None of the 18th Dynasty pharaohs meet the biblical requirements of the Exodus. There is no fit in biblical history nor Egyptian history and archaeology in the 18th Dynasty.

Is the Exodus a Late Bronze Event? - Liberal View

Most scholars in the archaeological community take the Liberal view. This view says that the Exodus was a 19th Dynasty event. This is the so-called Albright school and includes scholars such as Kitchen, Wright and Yadin. Archaeological support for a 19th Dynasty Exodus comes from the sites of Qantir (Pi-Rameses) and Tell Retabeh (Pi-Thom) where there was major building activity during the 19th Dynasty. However, the occupation of Pi-Rameses goes back to the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, circa 2000 BC. It existed long before Rameses II. In Genesis 47:11, Jacob and his family were granted land in the 'land of Rameses' 215 years before the Exodus. There is no surety that the biblical Rameses was named after Rameses II. Activity during his reign is not necessarily proof of a Late Bronze date for the Exodus.

Though there are records of Semitic slaves in the 19th Dynasty there is no evidence, written or archaeological, of unexpected poverty or loss of slaves. Weinstein sums up the situation, "The only question that really matters is whether any textual or archaeological materials indicate a major outflow of Asiatics from Egypt to Canaan in the 19th or even early 20th Dynasty. And so far the answer is no" [Weinstein, 1997, p 93]. Egypt was at its zenith during the New Kingdom and there is no disruption that could be attributed to the Exodus. At the same time there is no settlement of new people in Canaan during the Late Bronze.

The chronology of the 19th Dynasty is problematic for the Liberal view. If Ramses II is the Pharaoh of the Oppression then Ramses must die before the Exodus and there are not 40 years before the mention of the name of "Israel" in a stela of his successor, Pharaoh Merneptah. If Rameses II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus, then his father Seti I would be the Pharaoh of the Oppression and the Exodus would happen shortly after his death. There is no major disruption to the economy or the political power in the time of Ramses II. In fact, two stela have been excavated at Beth Shan that shows that Canaan was under Egyptian control during both their reigns. Second, although the Egyptians were supposedly in control of Canaan during the eras of the Judges, they are never mentioned as a military power.

There are also severe biblical difficulties. Under the accepted Egyptian chronology, this view does not leave sufficient chronological room for the era of the Judges, only about 300 years between the Exodus and the building of Solomon's Temple. The statement by Jephthah to the Ammonite king that the Israelites had lived in the Transjordan for 300 years (Counting the years of the Judges only) is discounted [Judges 11:26]. Thus, this view takes a low view of biblical chronology. The final blow to the 19th Dynasty Exodus is that all the mummies of the pharaohs of that dynasty have been found and identified. It is evident from the examinations of these mummies that none of them drowned in the Red Sea. The 19th Dynasty while it deals with some of the archaeological problems facing a Late Bronze Exodus does not meet the biblical requirements and must also be rejected.

In the so-called Liberal view the Exodus dates about 1260 BC. If the date of the Exodus cannot be so late then the Exodus is not in the 19th Dynasty. In the Evangelical view the Exodus took place in the 18th Dynasty. This is contradicted by history and archaeology. If the biblical chronology is wrong for a 19th Dynasty and the archaeology is wrong for an 18th Dynasty then the Exodus is not in the Late Bronze. The Late Bronze Exodus was determined by the conventional chronologies of Egypt and the Bible. If our conclusion is correct it implies that either the biblical or the Egyptian chronology is wrong or both.

Biblical Exodus in Other Archaeological Periods

Egyptian sources show that the Israelites controlled Canaan during the 18th Dynasty. This may be reasonably inferred from the cities that Thutmose III conquered with the Semitic names: Beth Zur, Etam, Joseph El and Jacob El [Wilson, 1969a, p. 242]. These first two names are listed as Israelite clan leaders in biblical genealogies [I Chr 2:45; I Chr 4:3]. In fact, Beth Zur and Etam were cities fortified by Rehoboam [II Chr 11:6]. The spelling of place names in the list corresponds to their spelling in the time of David and Solomon [Vycichl, 1942]. Names of people containing the name of Israel's God, Yahweh, such as 'Yashuya' [Letter 256 line 18] and 'Yahzabada' [Letters 275, 276] demonstrate Israel's presence in Canaan during the Amarna period [Moran, 1992]. Last, the mention of 'Yahu of the Shoshu', believed to refer to the name of Israel's God, in an Egyptian inscription of time of Amenhotep III in the Temple of Soleb, confirms again that the Israelites must already have both occupied and controlled Canaan [Redford, p.272; Giveon]. Note also that during Joshua and the Judges the use of "Jah" as a prefix or "iah" as a suffix to a name is rare. The practice increases greatly in the time of David. To find the Exodus in Egyptian history then requires that we look back to an earlier era.

Courville suggested the Early Bronze as the Exodus era [Courville]. In his scenario the 6th Dynasty and the 12th Dynasty, which share some similarities, are contemporaneous. Thus the EB and MB periods overlap. This view is dismissed in scholarly circles because EB material in Egypt is never found in Middle Kingdom tombs and MB material is never found in Old Kingdom tombs. Aardsma has also proposed 2450 BC for the date of the Exodus citing the work of Anati and Cohen to support his case [Aardsma]. But Anati and Cohen regard the archaeology of the Exodus as separate from biblical history. They claim that the Exodus stories were inspired by the events of the EBIII/MB I era which the Israelites adopted into their history much later. For them there was no Israelite Exodus to explain.

A Middle Bronze (MB) Exodus has been suggested by Velikovsky [Velikovsky,1952], Bimson [Bimson, 1981] and Rohl [Rohl,1995]. In these scenarios Joseph was a 12th Dynasty vizier. The Exodus of Moses was either at the end of the 12th Dynasty, the middle of the 13th Dynasty or the end of the 15th or Hyksos Dynasty. Each dates the Exodus about 1445 BC. They keep biblical chronology and demand some change to Egyptian dates. Meyer actually claims that the Hyksos are Israelites. He uses an Exodus date of 1560 BC without modifying Egyptian dates [Meyer].

Scholarly Critique

If the Exodus occurred in the Early Bronze (EB) Age or Middle Bronze (MB) Age, does this overcome his critical objections based on the archaeology of sites in Israel? Stiebing, a critic of the biblical Exodus, named several sites that conflict with a Late Bronze (LB) Exodus: Arad and Hormah, Jericho, Bethel and Ai, Heshbon and Gibeon.

Arad is usually identified with Tel Arad. There is no occupation of Tel Arad between 2700 and 1200 BC) [Stiebing, pp. 69-72]. There are two possible sites for Hormah, Tel Malhata and Tel Masos. At both sites there is no LB occupation (1600-1200 BC). Aharoni solves the difficulty by observing that there were two Arads recorded by the Egyptians: Arad and Greater Arad. The later Greater Arad could have been built at Tel Arad and the earlier Arad could be located at Tel Malhata. It was occupied throughout the Middle Bronze but not the EB. Aharoni thinks that Hormah can be located at Tel Masos, which was destroyed at the end of MBIIB and was rebuilt in the Iron Age I [Aharoni, Y. pp. 38-39]. These identifications would allow for an MB Exodus.

At Jericho, there is really no evidence of the burning of a walled city in the Late Bronze. However, either an EBIII or an MBII Exodus would fit earlier levels of Jericho [Stiebing, p.142]. Bethel and Ai are also problem sites for an LB Exodus. If Bethel is identified with Beitin then et-Tell is the

only site for the biblical Ai. It was burned in EB III and not reoccupied until the Iron Age. However, as Livingston shows Beitin is too far from Jerusalem to be Bethel [Livingston &Bimson, 1987]. They proposed sites el-Bireh for Bethel and Khirbet Nisya for Ai. These sites contain MB pottery but lack MB walls or destruction levels. No EB pottery has yet been identified. Nevertheless, Beitin is still too far to be Bethel and criticisms of the biblical account based on this identification are to be rejected.

Heshbon (Tell Hesban) was not occupied in the Middle Bronze or Late Bronze. Ibach has suggested that Tell el-Umeiri is an alternate site for Heshbon. It is located near Tell Hesban and was occupied from EB III until the end of MBII. Only traces of LB are found and the site rebounds in Iron I and early Iron II [Ibach, 1978]. It is possible that prior to the 9th century, Heshbon was located not far away at Tell el-Umeiri and was moved to its present location during Iron Age II. Gibeon was not occupied during the Late Bronze but there was a village in the EB and a sizable town in the MBII.

Another of Stiebing's points is the lack of occupation in the Sinai or wilderness between Middle Bronze I, circa 1900, and Iron I, circa 1200 BC. During Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze I and II, there is no sign of occupation in the Sinai, at Kadesh Barnea or Beer Sheva. He reasoned that any biblical Exodus/Conquest model proposed between the 12th and 20th Dynasty is contrary to archaeological evidence and is to be rejected [Stiebing, p. 62]. Biblical accounts fail to mention any people who greeted, fled or warred with the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea. When the Israelites approached Edom and Moab they offered assurances of peace and payment for food and water to them for safe passage through their land [Num 20:14-21]. No such offer is recorded for any other territory. This would imply the territory was unclaimed. No king, other than the King of Arad in the Negev, is mentioned as attacking Israel. Apparently, there was no authority over the area south of Arad. There is also no mention of any people occupying Beer Sheva in Moses day.

In the Transjordan it was once thought that there was no occupation of Moab and Edom in the Middle Bronze or Late Bronze. [Stiebing, pp.74-78]. This opinion resulted from Glueck's exploration of the Transjordan. Later surveys and excavations revealed that about 200 of 1500 sedentary sites surveyed show evidence of Middle and Late Bronze occupation [Stiebing, p.75]. These results refute the criticism that there was no evidence of a sedentary population in Transjordan during the Late and Middle Bronze. Indeed, the description of Moab and Edom [Num 21 and 33] supposed that they were no more than tribal kingdoms. Furthermore, the understanding of the ceramics in the Transjordan is just beginning. One excavator suggested that indigenous Late Bronze pottery developed into Iron Age pottery. "Theoretically, it is now quite possible that what Glueck called early Iron Age is in part fourteenth century BC Transjordanian pottery [Franken]". Thus the lack of Late Bronze imported pottery at some sites may not mean a lack of Late Bronze occupation. Conclusions about the historicity of biblical texts may have to await further development of a local pottery typology.

Finally, in Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh there are almost no Late Bronze sites in the hill country. This is the well-documented conclusion of Finkelstein who states, "Altogether only 25-30 sites were occupied in the Late Bronze II between Jezreel and Beer Sheba." [Finkelstein, I. 1988]. This is in contrast with almost 200 Middle Bronze sites and over 300 Iron I sites in the same area. Over 80% of the Middle Bronze sites are abandoned. He insists that this supports a view that the Israelites entered into an essentially empty Canaan occupied mostly by nomadic groups during the Iron Age.

This evidence is a very serious problem to any biblical Conquest model. If the Conquest began in the Late Bronze or early Iron Age then the hill country was deserted and the battles fought there against the walled Canaanite cities by Joshua are fiction. If the Conquest is in the Middle Bronze

then during the period of the Judges the Israelites deserted the hill country en masse and returned only in the Iron Age. The book of Judges is then full of fictional events of people who never lived there. The data leaves no plausible scenario compatible with textual biblical history anywhere in the Bronze Ages. The explanation of this evidence is complicated will be addressed at a later point.

Consecutive Habitation Test

With the exception of the last point the objections raised against an LB Exodus can be satisfied by an MB Exodus and to a lesser extent an EB Exodus. Do these, however, raise new objections? To answer this question I used archaeological data to quantify the credibility of each of 5 models. God promised Joshua that he would dispossess the Canaanites [Joshua 3:10]. That is, the cities and possessions of the Canaanites would become Israel's. Joshua also proclaimed that the Lord had given them cities they had not built and groves they had not planted [Joshua 24:13]. Logically, the Israelites lived in the cities they had just conquered and worked the groves and fields that they just taken. With a few exceptions, the cities that Joshua possessed ought to be inhabited before the Conquest and re-inhabited after the Conquest. Even for those cities where the Israelites were unable to dispossess the Canaanites, it is self-evident that there would be Canaanite habitation after the Conquest. So then we are looking for a period in which cities were inhabited in consecutive periods.

In Appendix A is a table of sites that were mentioned in Joshua/Judges, which have been identified surveyed and/or excavated by archaeologists. For each site the different levels of occupation (EBIII, MBI, MBIIA, MBIIBC, LBI, LBII, Iron I, Iron II) were obtained from the Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992) Mazar's Archaeology of the Bible Lands 10,000 - 586 BC (1990), The Biblical World (Ed. Pfeiffer), Kenyon's Archaeology in the Holy Land (1960) or Biblical Archaeological Review. An effort has been made to include as many sites in Joshua as possible but there are many identification problems and the sources are not exhaustive. Sites Levels with insufficient excavation were marked 'U' for unknown and treated statistically as occupied. Pottery surveys were accepted as data. Many occupations in the Late Bronze were described as scant but were treated as occupied. Arad, Hormah, Heshbon, Bethel and Ai were given the alternate sites described above.

Each site was evaluated for each model so that it received a 1 if there was an archaeological occupation prior and post the Exodus and 0 otherwise. The total count was then divided by the number of sites. Admittedly, this is a crude test because it involves little more than occupation. Some sites have been excavated others are merely surveyed for pottery. There are some false negatives sites such as Jericho that shows up as 0 for Bimson because it lacks an LB I occupation when in fact that agrees with the biblical text. It must also be admitted that not all sites must be reoccupied. Also not all positives correlate to the Bible and not all negatives are contradictory. However, what it lacks in sophistication it makes up for in its wide scope and simple criteria.

There were 20 sites that were positive for all models, so a second percentage was taken without those sites. The results are as follows:

Table 1 - Comparison of Consecutive Occupation Test Results

 MODEL  Courville  Revision  Bimson  Evangelical Liberal 

 AGE EB

III/MB MBIA/MBIIBC

 MBIIBC/LB I

 LB I/LB II  LB II/ IRON I

 ALL  53%  88%  71%  59%  68%

 w/o 20  32%  83%  59%  41%  54%

There were 10 unknowns, that were counted as occupied: 6 EBIII, 1 MBIIB, 1 MBIIC and 2 LB I. Even with 6 unknowns counted as positive, the Courville model faired badly. It may have solved outstanding archaeological problems at Beer Sheva and Dibon but overall the results are poor. It was eliminated from further consideration. Bimson is clearly an improvement over the Evangelical view and Liberal view but the best model is the Revisionist model of Velikovsky and Rohl.

There are 3 sites where all 4 Late and Middle Bronze models fail: Beer Sheba, Dibon, and Kadesh Barnea. The Bible does not record occupation of Kadesh Barnea or Beer Sheba during Israel's wandering in the desert so they are not problematic. This leaves Dibon as the only well-identified unoccupied site that fails to support even one of the remaining models. There are 8 sites where only one model is satisfactory: Arad, Aroer, Gibeah, Gibeon, Hebron, Hormah, Shiloh and Timnath-heres. Of these, Aroer supports the Liberal model, Shiloh supports the Bimson model and the rest support the Revisionists. However, it is doubtful that Shiloh was occupied before the Exodus. The biblical text makes no mention of any previous occupants. The support of Shiloh for Bimson's model is therefore ambiguous. It could easily support the Revision also. Thus of the 8 difficult sites 1 creates a difficulty for the Revisionist model; 7 create difficulties for the Liberal and the Bimson and all create difficulties for the Evangelical model.

The Revision is clearly the model with the best correlation. It scores zero at 6 sites. Kadesh Barnea, Beer Sheba and Shiloh are not problematic. Dibon and Aroer and have already been mentioned. The last, Taanach, has occupation in MBII B/C but none in MBII A. It may have been built before the time of the Conquest in MBII B. Thus there are serious difficulties for the Revision in only 2 sites.

Archaeological Test at Important Sites

The consecutive habitation test was a broad indicator of probable success. Its 'yes' or 'no' need not mean a compliance with the biblical text at any particular site. A more meaningful requirement would test the models against the archaeology details of the most important biblical sites. The test will focus mainly on occupation/abandonment, destruction layers, major structures and prosperity/poverty. These attributes are hard to miss and rarely in dispute. Scoring is as follows: 4 for perfect match, 3 good match, 2 some match, 1 poor match and 0 no match or contradiction.

JerichoThe first site to test our new models is Jericho. In the Bible Joshua, attacked Jericho, a walled city. The walls fell and Joshua took the city and burned it. A curse against reoccupation is put on Jericho so that it remains uninhabited until the time of Hiel in the reign of King Ahab [Josh 6:26, I Kings 16:34]. During the reign of Elgon, King of Moab, Eglon took possession of the city of the Palm Trees (i.e Jericho) and oppressed Israel for 18 years [Jud 3:12-14]. During the reign of Hanun, King of the Ammonites, David sent envoys. The King humiliated them by cutting off their beards. David instructed them to stay at the abandoned city of Jericho until their beards were again respectable (II Sam 10: 1-5).

The archaeology of Jericho has a walled city that was burned at the end of the Early Bronze and abandoned during MB I; another walled city that was burned in the latter part of MB II. Jars of charred grain were found at this Level [Wood, 1990] It was abandoned for 150 years during LB I. It was modestly reoccupied during LB IIA circa 1400 - 1275 BC but without a wall and without any burn layer. In the 8th century (Iron II), it was re-established without a defensive wall or any sign of a destruction level.

Clearly, the Courville model is contradicted by Jericho. The Revision and Bimson model would use the MB II destruction as that of Joshua's Jericho. It was walled, it was burned, valuable grain was left behind and it was abandoned. Both models, however, must explain away the existence of an LB IIA unwalled city. I score them 3 each. The Evangelical model must first explain why Jericho was not occupied in LB I. There is no LB I wall nor burn layer. Furthermore, Jericho is not abandoned in LB II. I score the Evangelical model 0. With the Liberal view, there is a LB II occupation but no wall and no destructive burn layer. It was abandoned in Iron Age I but lasted past the reign of Ahab. I score the Liberal model 2.

HazorThe next site to evaluate is Hazor. Hazor was the city of King Jabin, who was the leader of the largest and most powerful coalition of Canaanites. His city was the strongest of all the Canaanite cities. Joshua attacked King Jabin, hamstrung his horses and burned Hazor to the ground. Later, Hazor and its Canaanites returned to oppress Israel until Judge Deborah defeated them. There is no explicit mention of Israelites occupying the city. After this Hazor plays no role in Israelite biblical history.

Archaeologically, Hazor MB II (Stratum XVI) was at its zenith. It is by far the largest site in Canaan during any Bronze Age. Furthermore, MB II Hazor decreased in size and wealth during the Late Bronze. It suffered a major destruction at the end of the Late Bronze II and was occupied throughout the Iron Age. The Revision and Bimson models agree exactly with biblical data. They score 4 each. The Evangelical model has an LB I occupation but lacks a destruction layer. Also the LB town is much less significant than MB II Hazor. The Liberal model can boast a major destruction level at the end of LB IIB but again was far less important than MB II Hazor. I score the Evangelical 2 and Liberal 3.

GibeonNext we examine Gibeon. The Gibeonites pretended to be from far away. In fact, Gibeon was the royal city of the Hivites. They did this to make a treaty of protection with Joshua. When the Canaanites attacked Joshua successfully defended Gibeon but imposed on them a serf-like yoke of drawing water and chopping wood - both menial and low-paying work. The Gibeonites were still living in Gibeon during the reign of David, circa 400-500 years later, when they demanded justice on the family of Saul. Thus Gibeon would have been a prosperous royal city before the Conquest; it was not attacked or burned and its significance would decrease afterward.

Archaeologically, Gibeon was a prosperous town in MB II but by the end of MB II it had become a small and insignificant. There are no occupation levels that belong to the Late Bronze. There is a poor reoccupation during the Iron Age I and II. The Revision model scores well because it puts the Conquest during the most prosperous MB II Gibeon. There is no MB II destruction level. However, there is a problem with the continuous occupation of the site for 400-500 years. The conventional archaeology suggests 200 years or less. The Revision scores 3. The Bimson model has the Conquest at the end of MB IIC when it was a small modest town. It was not attacked at that time. But the model cannot explain an LB I abandonment almost immediately after the Conquest. I score Bimson 2. The Evangelical and Liberal models do not have an LB occupation; they score 0.

 

ShilohAfter the success of Joshua's campaign, Israel gathered at Shiloh (Joshua 22:12). No mention is made of a Canaanite king, an attack or the removal of Canaanite idols or altars. No mention of Shiloh is made during the sojourn of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob in Canaan. It would appear to be a

"new" site and thus unoccupied until the Conquest. The tabernacle was established at Shiloh and remained in Shiloh until Eli. During the priesthood of Eli, the Israelites were losing a battle with the Philistines at Ebenezer. The Ark of the Covenant was brought from Shiloh but still they were routed and the Ark was captured by the Philistines. When the Ark was returned it went to Kiriath-jearim not Shiloh. Thus, for about 450 years, Shiloh was the chief place of worship and sacrifice for the Israelites. Shiloh continued to exist into the days of Jeroboam I (I Kings 14:2) but its days of glory never returned. Instead Jeremiah used its destruction at some unknown time to illustrate the folly of the Israelites who abandoned God (Jeremiah 7:12,14).

According to Finkelstein, "Shiloh was first occupied in the Middle Bronze IIB". [Finkelstein, 1986, p. 26]. It was unwalled in MBIIB but in MBIIC massive fortifications were constructed including a wall and glacis. Its votive objects indicated that it was used as a cultic site. The wall was destroyed at the end of the Middle Bronze IIC. In Area D there was a major fill of broken bones, broken LB I pottery and ash. Iron IA houses and storage rooms were found with collar-rim 12th century pottery against the Middle Bronze wall. "Israelite (sic) settlement at Shiloh began at the beginning of Iron I after the tell had been abandoned(no LB II occupation indicated). [p. 36]" Shiloh suffered a major conflagration at the end of the Iron I period [p. 39].

The Revisionists would say the MB IIB was Israelite and the destruction at the end of the MB IIC was that of the Philistines. After that it diminished in importance during the Late Bronze. It recovered in the Iron Age before Jeroboam I and was destroyed by unknown forces after Jeroboam I. This does not accommodate a 450-year initial period; nor do the others. The fit deserves a 3. Bimson would claim that the destruction at the end of the Middle Bronze IIC was an unrecorded Israelite attack on the Canaanites and that the Iron Age destruction was Philistine but the abandonment of Shiloh in LB II is a major problem. The fit deserves a score of 1. The Evangelical model has an MB II/LB I Canaanite cultic centre that was abandoned in LB II just as the Israelites arrive. Then when Shiloh is re-established in Iron I. It lasts only 100 or so years before its destruction by the Philistines. The Evangelical view scores 0. The Liberal view has no cultic centre at Shiloh in the Late Bronze II before the Conquest and thus no attack. Shiloh appears to be a fresh start. However, it is destroyed within 200 years archaeologically speaking. Liberal model scores 3.

ShechemShechem (Tel Balata) is a very old site going back to the time of Abraham and Jacob. It was not mentioned by Joshua as a city captured in the Conquest. He did, however, make Shechem a "city of refuge" (Josh 20:7) and he assembled the people there and erected a stone monument with their covenant with the Lord (Josh 24: 13). During the era of the Judges (Jud 9:45) the Shechemites rebelled against Abimelech the son of Gideon. The subsequent attack by Abimelech was successful and 1000 people were forced to take refuge in the stronghold of the Temple of Baal Berith. The temple was set on fire and they died. Abimelech subsequently razed and salted the city so that it could not be reoccupied. During the reign of Jeroboam I (I Kings 13:25), the King built up Shechem as his capital.

The archaeology of Shechem shows that it was a major fortified town throughout the Middle Bronze. In MB IIC there was a large temple-fortress, Temple 1, with walls 5.1 m thick. It came to an end during a complete conflagration. From then until the beginning of LB IB the site was abandoned. Courville and Rohl identify this as the Temple of Baal Berith followed by Stager [Stager, p.26-69]. Even the excavators were sure at first that this was the only temple that fit the text [Wright]. Later, after the pottery was determined to be MB IIC, the identification was abandoned. Temple 2b in the Late Bronze stratum was given the honour. There is no sign of a major destruction or abandonment of the Temple in the Late Bronze. In the Iron Age I, there was a destruction layer

after which the temple was replaced by a granary. Hereafter, the status of Shechem appears to revert to that of a village.

The Revision scores at well at Shechem. It uses the MB IIC Temple-fortress as Abimelech's. The stratum experienced a major conflagration and was abandoned for about a century. "The final destruction of MB IIC Shechem displays a calculated ferocity and an intent to cause complete destruction of the city. Shechem lay in ruins for about a century until its rebuilding in LB IB" [ABD, Shechem, p. 1182]. The Revision must extend the Middle Bronze to 12/13th century of Abimelech and thus must place Jeroboam's capital city Shechem in the Late Bronze. According to Anchor Bible Dictionary LB IB Shechem was rebuilt by engineers who "seemed to have done the entire rebuilding in a single well-planned operation"[p.1182]. This would fit well the town planning of a new king. They score 3. Bimson has the conflagration of Shechem at the same time as Jericho and Hazor but not recorded in the Bible. During the first hundred years of the Conquest Shechem is abandoned contrary to its status as a "city of refuge". Temple 2b of LB IIB is his biblical Temple of Baal Berith but it is a too small to hold 1000 people. He must assume with the Evangelicals that it lasted into the Iron Age so that that Iron Age IA destruction level is that of Abimelech. Jeroboam I must be sought in Iron IB-IIA. "Unfortunately, the archaeological evidence for the period is sparse and ambiguous"[ABD, p.1182]. Bimson scores 1. The Liberals and Evangelical can claim a Shechem that was not attacked at their Conquest date and was occupied immediately thereafter but both must use a temple that is too small. In addition, the Liberals must compress the entire era before Abimelech into an impossibly short Iron Age IA and have no Iron Age IB-IIA capital city for Jeroboam I. Evangelicals score 3 and Liberals score 2.

AradArad and Hormah are situated in the southern Negev. As the Israelites approached the "promised land", the King of Arad marched to attack them. The Israelites meet and defeated them at Hormah (Num. 21:1-3). Joshua listed (Joshua 12:14) Hormah and Arad among the 31 cities and kings that he had captured. Hormah is listed as being destroyed in Judges 1:17.

If Arad is identified as Tel Arad then all the models score 0. Using Aharoni's scheme older Arad is a Tel Malhata and Hormah is Tel Masos (Khirbet Meshash)[Aharoni]. These two sites were occupied during the MB II but there is no sign of any Late Bronze occupation. Thus Evangelicals and Liberals score 0. Tel Masos was destroyed at the end of MB IIB and Tel Arad after the end of MB IIC. Thus Bimson fits Arad but not Hormah. Bimson scores 2. Both sites were occupied in MB IIA and Hormah destroyed in MB IIB. The Revision scores 4.

The totals below reflect the superiority of an MB Exodus model over an LB one. Thus our confidence in the conventional assumptions fail and we assume a Middle Bronze Exodus assumption instead.

Table 2 - Comparison of Models for Important Site Test

 Revision  Bimson  Evangelical  Liberal

 20/24  13/24  5/24  10/24

Biblical date of the Exodus According to Ancient Chronologists

The Evangelical model although it affirms the biblical text accepts both the Egyptian and the biblical chronologies and so experiences archaeological contradictions. Its failure tells us that the

juxtaposition of the Exodus with the 18th Dynasty is false and that at least one of the biblical or Egyptian chronology is wrong.

The conventional wisdom is that the Exodus is 480 years before the founding of Solomon's Temple. This is based chiefly on the authority of Ussher, Archbishop of Ireland. His chronology was published close to the Reformation in the 17th century when the King James Bible was first published in modern English. However, this interpretation was not popular in the Hellenist era or among the early Christian fathers. According to Whiston, Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews dated the Judges era at 592 years and later calculated 612 years. This places the Exodus not in the 15th century but the 17th century. Other chronologists in the church who dated the Judges' era were Africanus, 679 years; Clement, 576 or 595 years; Tatian 566 years and Eusebius 480 years. The Jewish chronologist Theophilus gave 566 years. Eusebius alone of the major Christian writers thought the Judges' era did not exceed 480 years [Meyer].

These ancients obviously understood the 480 years of Judges as other than chronological years. Paul in Acts 13:18:21 (NASB) also understood this. "For some forty years He bore with their conduct in the desert. Then in the Canaanite country, after overthrowing seven nations, whose lands he gave them to be their heritage for some 450 years he appointed judges for them until the time of the prophet Samuel. It was then that they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin. He reigned forty years before God removed him and appointed David as their King...".

According to Kitchen: "The lazy man's solution is simply to cite the 480 years ostensibly given in (1 Kings 6:1) from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon (ca. 966 BC). However, this too simple solution is ruled out by the combined weight of all the other biblical data plus additional information from external data. So the interval of time from the Exodus comes out not at 480 years but as over 553 years (by three unknown amounts). " [Kitchen, 1992, p.702] De Vries notes, "It should be pointed out, moreover, that the chronology demanded by the books of the Judges and Samuel actually far exceeds the figure of 480 years. a total of 554 years plus two periods of unknown length occupy the interval from the Exodus to the founding of Solomon's temple." [De Vries, 1962, p.584]

Anstey thought the explanation lay in the numbering of the years of the Israelite rulers [Anstey]. The 480 years represented only years of the Judges ruling omitting those years where there was foreign oppression. But Anstey's calculation, like Kitchen and De Vries includes 40 years for the priesthood of Eli as a separate period when it ends near the death of Samson. Montgomery's calculation of 568 years puts the Exodus at 1591 BC [Montgomery, 1998]. A further reason to think that the 480 years is not chronological is that the Septuagint in I Kings 6:1 claims that the Exodus was 440 years earlier. The Septuagint translators may have counted the Philistines as a foreign oppression and so excluded those 40 years whereas the Masoretes included them under the Judgeship of Samson and Samuel. My new second assumption is that biblical chronology puts the Exodus near 1600 BC.

In Egyptian chronology 1600 BC would fall into Hyksos era. The early biblical chronologists put the Exodus at or near the expulsion of the Hyksos according to their understanding of Egyptian chronology. They concluded that the Hyksos were the Israelites. This is an historical error. The Hyksos were not like the Israelites in any respect except they were Semitic. Pharaoh invited the Israelites into Egypt but the Hyksos invaded. The Israelites demanded to leave but Pharaoh held them by force. The Hyksos were driven out. Such identifications can be rejected. However, if the Israelites are not Hyksos we must admit an error in Egyptian chronology.

The Assyrian Adjustment to Egyptian Chronology

If the Egyptian chronology is wrong by what standard are we to correct it? Unfortunately, datable Israelite artifacts are rare and in the Judges era non-existent. However, in the Middle Bronze II era, items of the First Babylonian Dynasty with its celebrated King Hammurabi, have been found in tombs in Byblos along side tombs dating to the late 12th Dynasty in Egypt 1991-1778 BC. Shamsi-Adad I, King of Assyria, was contemporary with Hammurabi and included in the Assyrian king list. Thus there is an archaeological connection that can help synchronize the Assyrian and Egyptian dates. Historically, Egyptian dates have been significantly higher than the Assyrian. Hammurabi's reign once thought to be 1728-1686 has been raised to 1792-1750 BC. Moreover, the newest Assyrian chronology is even lower, bringing Hammurabi down to 1696-1654 BC [Gasche et al]. This choice to adjust Assyrian dates to meet the Egyptian chronology is arbitrary. Instead I adopt my third assumption: that Assyrian dates are more reliable and are to be used to "correct" the Egyptian dates.

In the Middle Bronze in Mesopotamia, the 1st Babylonian Dynasty with its famous king, Hammurabi arose. Astronomical records of the planet Venus in the reign of King Ammizadaga gave hope that absolute dates could be determined for the 1st Dynasty. Investigators were disappointed. The merits of the High, Middle and Low dates are still debated [see James, P. Appendix 4 for a readable summary of the controversy]. The generally accepted dates of Hammurabi are High, 1856-1814; Middle 1792-1750; and Low 1728-1686. At Byblos, tombs showed that Hammurabi of the 1st Babylonian Dynasty was contemporary with the latter part of the 12th Dynasty. This favours the High and Middle chronologies. The Assyrian king list showed that Hammurabi was a contemporary of Assyrian King Shamsi-Adad I and this favoured the Low chronology. The Low chronology was also favoured by Mesopotamia cylinder seals of the 1st Babylonian Dynasty that were found at Nuzi and Arrapha in 15th century strata [Smith, p. 16].

In the Middle Bronze, East met West at Alalakh in northern Syria. In Level VII, Woolley, the excavator of Alalakh, found a letter of King Yarim-Lim of Yamhad, a contemporary of Hammurabi, who appealed to an unknown pharaoh to come to his aid. Woolley used the Low chronology to date his finds but soon encountered problems. Woolley noted that the latest time that Egypt had any presence in north Syria was under Amenemhet III, who died 90 years earlier under the conventional Egyptian dates [Woolley, p. 389]. Woolley resolved the issue by raising the dates 60 years to 1792 - 1750 [Woolley, p. 389]. This did not accord even with his own evidence. Nor did it resolve the problem of the Mesopotamia cylinder seals at Nuzi and Arrapha in 15th century strata or the Assyrian king list. Using the latest proposal for the Assyrian chronology [Gasche et al, 1998] would require a minimum 120-year adjustment.

Woolley also had difficulty aligning the post-Babylonian pottery in Levels VI and V at Alalakh. Specifically, polychrome and "Union Jack" ware is found at Alalakh in Level VI, 50-100 years later than its counterpart in Hyksos strata in Palestine [p. 389]. Furthermore, red on black ware, dated to the Middle Kingdom era should have preceded Level VI altogether. Again, this suggested a minimum 120-year adjustment of dates. Furthermore, the Tell el-Yehudiyah pottery that began late in the 12th Dynasty in Egypt (early 18th century), occurred in Syria "everywhere in a context later than 1600" [Schaeffer, p.25-27]. This would require a minimum178-year adjustment. If the down dating were 191 years then the 12th Dynasty would end in 1591, the date of the Exodus according to my Biblically Inerrant Chronology [Montgomery].

Woolley made the archaeology conform to the Egyptian dates meant adopting Middle dates for Hammurabi and Yarim-Lim. As can be seen above, it does not work. The alternative is to conform to archaeology to Assyrian dates and adjust Egyptian chronology. Thus the Hyksos Dynasty is to be

down dated by 75 years to accord with the polychrome "Union Jack" ware (1648-1541 to 1573-1466 BC) and the Middle Kingdom 12th/13th Dynasties are to be down dated by 191 years (1991-1648 to 1800-1457). This demands a major overlapping of the 13th Dynasty with the Hyksos 15th Dynasty. Is this possible?

In the area regarded as that of the biblical Goshen, a stone block of bearing the name Hetepibre, a 13th Dynasty pharaoh, found together with a stele of Sobeknefru, the last pharaoh of the 12th Dynasty, was inscribed with the throne name "Amu, son of Saharnedjheryotef" [Habachi, L.]. To an Egyptian, an Amu name in a cartouche was a presumption that they would never tolerate. Egyptian literature shows they feared the Amu greatly and held them in great contempt. The fourth pharaoh of the dynasty, "Amenemhet V, the Amu" was also an Amu. The Turin Royal Canon, the only king list of Egyptian pharaohs, says after the second king of the 13th Dynasty "-no king for 6 years." This is the only time in history where it is stated that no king reigned during a dynasty. It is plain that at least some of the 13th Dynasty pharaohs were Amu/Hyksos. The only explanation that really fits this evidence is that the conquest of Egypt by a Hyksos invasion began with the 13th Dynasty. It was only later, perhaps in a second wave, that the Hyksos consolidated their power in Egypt at Avaris as the 15th Dynasty.

Exodus in the Twelfth DynastyOur new assumptions result in dating the Exodus at the end of the 12th Dynasty. This, however, is only a chronological juxtaposition. We must ask the question: does this make historical and archaeological sense. The 12th Dynasty was rich and powerful but the 13th Dynasty had impoverished remains. This is one of the Exodus archaeological conditions we are seeking. The Turin Canon gives about 60 kings for the 13th Dynasty. Most of the reign lengths are missing but the average for the dozen that are known is less than 7 years. Several pharaohs are known to have reigned months not years. This indicates great instability over a considerable period. This is another condition we are seeking. The reason for drastic economic decline and political instability is unknown according to Egyptologists.

Excavations in the Goshen region reveal occupation by large Semitic populations in the Middle Kingdom. Excavations by Bietak at a site called Tell ed-Daba revealed that Egyptianized Semites dwelt there during the 12th Dynasty at Level H [Bietak, 1996. p 9-10]. Bietak identified the site as Avaris the ancient Egyptian capital of the Hyksos. Unlike Egyptians, these 12th Dynasty Semites attached their graves to their homes in Middle Bronze Levantine fashion. Pictures and sculptures show these Semites with peculiar mushroom style hairstyle [Bietak, p. 19]. The same Semites also lived in nearby Ezbet Rushdi in Level d/2. Rohl proposed that these Egyptianized Semites were Israelites [Rohl, 1995]. The13th Dynasty began in Levels d/1 and G where a significant change in the Semite population occurred. There were no longer any images of people with mushroom hairstyle. The new burial practices began. The Semitic graves now abounded in weaponry. Pairs of donkeys were found buried at the entrances to the their graves. This kind of burial is paralleled only in southern Canaan, especially at Tell el-Ajjul [Bietak p. 25]. Tell el-Ajjul is usually identified with the Sharuhen which was the Hyksos centre of influence in Palestine during the Second Intermediate Period (SIP). Also, the pottery that had been imported from northern Canaan and the Levant was replaced in Levels d/1 and G by Tell el-Yehudiyah ware and pottery from southern Canaan [Bietak p. 31].

I propose that these Semites are the Hyksos. Velikovsky identified these Hyksos as Amalekites. The Israelites met the Amalekites in Sinai. As the Israelites were proceeding towards the East, the Amalekites were proceeding West toward an Egypt that was economically, militarily and emotionally exhausted. The Exodus would explain why they have met little resistance to their invasion.

Manetho was an Egyptian historian of the Hellenistic Period. According to Josephus, he said of the Hyksos invasion, "There was a king...whose name was Timaus. Under him it came to pass, I know not how, that God was averse to us, and there came, after a surprising manner, men of ignoble birth (Hyksos)...and subdued our land by force, yet without hazarding a battle." After a while, they gained control of the governors of Egypt, burned the cities, razed the temples, abused the inhabitants, sold many into slavery, left garrisons in key locations and put both Upper and Lower Egypt under tribute [Josephus, Against Apion I.14, p.610]. After a while one of them named Salitis established a fortress in the delta which he called Avaris. Salitis is named by Josephus as the first Hyksos king. It may be that there were two waves of Hyksos and Salitis may have been in the first king in the second wave. This could explain why the first wave of the Hyksos attempted to rule from Memphis as 13th Dynasty pharaohs but later found it more secure to rule from Avaris.

At Ezbet Rushdi a "Mittelsaalhaus", a house with a central court, was discovered. This kind of architecture also occurred in Mesopotamia, in 17th century Mari. Also a statue of an Asiatic with red hair and yellow skin was found. It also had a Mesopotamian parallel in 17th century Ebla [Bietak, p. 20]. These dates are taken from Assyrian chronology and thus, according to the assumption used in this model, would override the 19th century Egyptian date. This date for the strata agrees with our new model dating of the 12th Dynasty to the 17th century.

In summation, in the region of Goshen at the end of the 12th Dynasty, lived a Semitic race who disappeared, like the Israelites, and were replaced in the 13th Dynasty by the Hyksos (Amalekites). At that time a prosperous and powerful 12th Dynasty became the weak and impoverished 13th Dynasty. Furthermore, Middle Bronze architecture and artifacts from Mesopotamia date the latter half of the 12th Dynasty to the 17th century in agreement with our assumptions. These conditions are those sought to correlate with the Exodus. The question is does the 12th Dynasty correlate well with the Israelite Sojourn and does the Conquest of Canaan under Joshua correlate well with post 12th Dynasty stratigraphy in Canaan?

Twelfth Dynasty Sojourn

In the area of biblical Goshen the Israelites were building two store cities, Rameses and Pi-Thom. Archaeologists have identified Rameses as Pi-Rameses in the district of Qantir. Bietak's excavations showed that it was occupied both in the Hyksos and Middle Kingdom. Tell Retabeh and Tell Maskhuta, the two candidates for Pi-Thom also had Hyksos and Middle Kingdom layers. Thus the two biblical cities of the Exodus are represented in the appropriate strata.

Was there a powerful Vizier in the 12th Dynasty who could have been Joseph? Courville identified Joseph as Vizier Mentuhotep under Senusret I, the most powerful Vizier of the 12th Dynasty [Courville, 1977, Vol. 1, p.142]. His many impressive titles were: 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. Such titles were unprecedented either before or after this time. Particularly the epithet, "Sustaining Alive the People", brings some deed of national salvation to mind. Over 100 years later, in the reign of Senusret III, Mentuhotep's figure was defaced, so that his memory was dishonoured. Courville identified Senusret III as the pharaoh of oppression. [Courville, 1977, Vol. 1, p.149]

Sparks identified the Pharaoh of the Exodus as Amenemhet IV [Brad Sparks -personal communication]. He points out that of all the pyramids and tombs of the 12th Dynasty pharaohs are accounted for except those of Amenemhat IV and his sister Sobekhotep I. I would add that the death of Amenemhet IV is at exactly the right date in relation to the 7 years of Joseph's famine. Egypt's

only king list, the Turin Canon, gives the 12th Dynasty 213 years. Sobeknofrure reigned the final 4 years, leaving 209 years at the death of Amenemhat IV. Adding 209 to 1591 BC yields 1800 BC for the first year of the 12th Dynasty. Jacob entered Egypt 215 years before the Exodus, or 1806 BC. This was the 2nd year of 7 years of poor crops that began in 1807 or exactly the last 7 years of the 11th Dynasty. The Turin Canon does not name the pharaoh who ruled just before the beginning of the 12th Dynasty but states instead that there were "7 empty years" [Grimal, p. 158]. The drought-ridden years were so bad that Egyptians refused to include his name in the king list.

At age 40 Moses murdered an Egyptian to protect an Israelite and fled to Midian for 40 years. Josephus records that sometime after the death of this pharaoh Moses asked his father-in-law for permission to return to Egypt [Antiquities of the Jews]. Thus this pharaoh and his successor ruled at least 40 years. In the latter part of the 12th Dynasty, Amenemhat III reigned 48 years. Moses could have been born under Senusret III, who ruled 38 years, fled to Midian under Amenemhat III and returned 40 years later to confront Amenemhat IV.

The Middle Kingdom also provides historical documents that refer to the events of the Exodus. Velikovsky proposed that the Egyptians, having lost all their slaves and their capacity to fend off the invading Hyksos, recorded this disaster in the Middle Kingdom papyrus called "Admonitions of Ipuwer". Its author complained 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 complained about barbarians and foreigners as though the country had been invaded. He wrote, "Nobody is planting crops" because they were not sure what will happen. Their crops were devastated, "Grain is perished on every side." The southernmost districts no longer paid taxes. The Nile strangely turned to blood so that "If one drinks it, one rejects it as human (blood) and thirsts for water." The similarities to the plagues of the Exodus are obvious. Gardiner followed by most Egyptologists dated the events of Ipuwer to the First Intermediate Period. However, Wilson conceded that the language and orthography belong to the Middle Kingdom [Wilson, 1969b, p. 442]. Other scholars such as Van Seters, and Velikovsky have argued for a Second Intermediate Period date, i.e. the 13th Dynasty/Hyksos era [Van Seters, 1966, pp.103 120], [Velikovsky, 1952, pp. 48-50]. If the latter opinion is correct it negates the criticism that the Egyptians failed to record the devastation wrought by the Exodus.

The Conquest after the 12th Dynasty

What might the archaeology outside of Egypt say about an MB II Exodus? We have mentioned already that the Sinai and the Negev were uninhabited during the MBII and this explains why, apart from the Amalekites, the Israelites met no one in their wanderings for 40 years. What happened after their arrival in the Promised Land and their battles with the Canaanites? According to Kenyon "During MB IIB the towns in Palestine show great development and all the evidence of an eventful history. Each town excavated was rebuilt several times within the period and each suffered several destructions." [Kenyon, 1960, p. 173]. Finkelstein says, "The entire country flourished in MB IIB. In contrast to earlier periods of prosperity, however, an unprecedented number of settlers inundated the central hill country as well. Hundreds of sites of every size were founded throughout the region..."[Finkelstein, p. 339] Again, he states, "The wave of settlement crested in the MB IIB" [Finkelstein, p. 340]. The MB IIB provides exactly the archaeology required for the Conquest by Joshua.

Dating Jericho

It would be an appropriate test of our new MBII B Conquest model to apply our chronology to the archaeological remains at Jericho. Several artifacts and pottery can provide independent dates. Do these dates agree with a Conquest date of 1551 BC? After 40 years in the Sinai, the Israelites under

Joshua captured Jericho and burned it completely. Afterwards Jericho was cursed and deserted. The mound of Jericho is located in the Jordan Valley at Tell es-Sultan. In 1908, Watzinger and Sellin, excavated it and found a MB walled city and glacis. At the Late Bronze level, they found no walled city at Jericho. Garstang continued the excavation and claimed he had found an LB walled city that had been burned that he could date to 1400 BC. When Kenyon resumed the excavation she discovered that Garstang's walls were not LB but EB, circa 2000 BC not 1400 BC. However, both EB and MB Jericho had been walled and burned to the ground. She also discovered that, "...there is a complete gap (in the occupation of Jericho) both on the tell and in the tombs between 1580 and 1400." [Kenyon, 1960, p. 198]

Kenyon's discovered other interesting facts about the MB Jericho. The MB upper walls of Jericho, 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, charred wheat in jars was found in unusual quantities six bushels. Grain, normally, would be carried off as booty rather than being left to burn in the conflagration. Wood concluded that only the MB Level IV at Jericho meets uniquely the requirements for Joshua's Jericho. [Wood, 1990].

Wood attempted recently to redate the fall of this city to 1400 from its pottery evidence [Wood, 1990]. His attempt has been rejected by several archaeologists [Bienkowski, 1990; Halpern, 1987]. The case against the redating was stated by Bartlett thus; "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, p. 96]. The date of the conflagration of Jericho IV must precede the date of bichrome ware by circa 150 years. Wood's attempt to redate Level IV does not seem to have succeeded.

Scarabs and Radiocarbon dates

At Jericho a scarab of Sheshi of was found in the Hyksos Group v tombs. At Tell el-Ajjul a scarab of Maibre Sheshi was found the foundation deposits of the construction of Tell el-Ajjul Level II dated to about 1650 BC. Kempinski concluded that the Group v scarab and the destruction of Jericho ought to be dated to the late 17th century [Kempinski]. Bienkowski agreed with Kempinski dating the end of the Jericho Level IV to 1600 BC. Applying our new assumptions we calculate a 75-year downward revision of the Hyksos pottery and scarabs that results in a new model date of 1525 BC. (Note also that the revised date of the Hyksos is 1573 -1465). Group iii tombs contained scarabs of the 13th Dynasty including one from Sobekhotep V dated to about 1725 BC, but this is an estimate as many reign lengths of the 13th Dynasty are unknown. Applying our new dating assumption we subtract 191 to arrive at 1534 BC. This compares with 1551 BC, the biblical date according to our new assumptions.

Radiocarbon dating has also entered the debate over the date of the destruction of Jericho Level IV. Wood cited a late 15th century radiocarbon date for BM-1790. The British Museum later revised a series of radiocarbon dates that included the sample BM-1790 [Weinstein, p.101, n.28]. The revised calibrated date was the mid-16th century BC. Newer results agree to this date also. Bruins and Vander Plicht recently published radiocarbon data on charred grain from Jericho IV [Bruins & Vander Plicht, 1996, p. 213]. 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. Using the lower calibration dates results in a composite interval of 1551-1535 BC for the Jericho grain.

After Joshua defeated Jabin, Canaanite King of Hazor, he burned Hazor and hamstrung its horses [Joshua 11:10]. Was MB Hazor burned at the same time as MB Jericho? Concerning Hazor, 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 the MB level at Hazor, a tablet in Old Babylonian was found. It was a letter addressed to King Ibni-Addu or Jabin Adad in Hebrew and dated to the time of the kingdom of Mari (17th century in Assyrian chronology). This is the same date placed on some of the archaeological finds at Tell el-Daba.

The ceramic date 1525 BC and the scarab dates 1525 and 1534 BC are dependent on Assyrian chronology; 1551 BC is dependent on the biblical chronology and the radiocarbon dates 1551-1535 are independent of both. Furthermore, a Babylonian cylinder seal of the era of Hammurabi - here dated by Gasche's chronology to the mid-17th century - found in a Group ii tomb fits well into the above dates [Rohl, 1995, p. 309]. Thus, there is a remarkably close agreement from 3 independent chronological witnesses that Jericho Level IV was destroyed in the middle of the 15th century BC and pottery from Hazor also agrees that it was burned at the same time. It would be very difficult to argue that all this agreement is just coincidental.

To the previous evidence identifying the Exodus of the Israelites in Goshen at the end of the 12th Dynasty, and an empty Sinai and wilderness, we can further add a walled city at Jericho and Hazor (the largest tell in Palestine in any Bronze) that was burned and then deserted. In addition, we know that in the Middle Bronze there was at least one Canaanite king of Hazor with the name Jabin. Furthermore, we can say that there was a major increase in settlement in Canaan in the MB IIB as well as several destructions at many sites as one would expect in the Judges era. Lastly, there is no sign of any Egyptian military power at this time in agreement with the texts of the Judges. Thus all the archaeological conditions needed to meet the requirements for the Exodus have been found in the Middle Bronze IIB. The four assumptions of biblical MB Exodus model are:

1. The Exodus is a real historical event;2. The Exodus is in the Middle Bronze IIB;3. A biblical chronology that puts the Exodus near 1600 BC; and4. Egyptian chronology modified by Gasche's new Assyrian chronology so that the Middle Kingdom advances 191 years and the Hyksos 75 years.

These assumptions then produce a Biblically compatible archaeological model of the Exodus..Redating the Late Bronze

The most significant challenge to the biblical Exodus Model described above is the chronological gap at Jericho. What is to be done with Jericho's Late Bronze occupation? According to the Bible Joshua cursed Jericho so that anyone who rebuilt its walls and gates would suffer the loss of his oldest and youngest sons [Joshua 6:26]. In the days of King Ahab, Hiel the Bethelite rebuilt the walls and the gate of Jericho at the cost of his eldest and youngest sons [I Kings 16:34]. In the Biblically Inerrant Chronology (henceforth BIC) the fall of Jericho was in 1551 BIC and the beginning of the reign of Ahab was 929 BIC or 622 years [Montgomery, 1998]. According to conventional chronology Jericho's LB strata began at 1400 BC leaving a gap of 151 years. The down dating of the Libyan Dynasty accounts for 73 years but that still leaves an additional 400 years. Either the biblical or the conventional Late Bronze dates are wrong.

Archaeology relies heavily on pottery dating. The present Egyptian chronology is responsible for giving dates to most of the pottery of the Middle East during the biblical era. The current dates were largely determined at the turn of the century. At that time Petrie discovered Mycenaean pottery in 18th and 19th Dynasty tombs [Petrie]. This allowed absolute Egyptian dates to be applied to this pottery. It is important to understand that these dates caused a serious controversy [Torr, 1896]. Torr, a Greek archaeologist, pointed out that Petrie had raised their dates for Mycenaean pottery by 400 years. Before this, they had dated the pottery of the Late Mycenaean period circa 1200-800 BC to allow continuity and even overlap with the Geometric period. Petrie's pushed back the dates from 1200-800 to 1600-1200 BC. This caused a "Dark Age" to appear in Greek archaeology between 1200 and 800 where there was little or no history, architecture, art or weaponry. Furthermore, the dates of the Greek pottery were then transmitted to other contemporary pottery types. Thus all over the Mediterranean the "Dark Age" spread everywhere that Greek Mycenaean pottery and its cognates appeared [James, 1993, p.16]. Egyptian dates prevailed but the problems created have never been resolved.

The problem between biblical dates and conventional Late Bronze dates is now seen to be with the latter. A 400-year down dating will fully realign the stratigraphy of Israel so that the chronology of the strata and the biblical dates are synchronized. This adjustment of the Exodus model to include the Late Bronze archaeology will be called the Biblical Stratigraphic Model (BSM).

Velikovsky's Revision

It is now opportune to point out that the down dating of the Late Bronze by 475 years is exactly the Velikovsky scheme [Velikovsky, 1952, 1977, 1978]. Velikovsky was convinced that because of the proximity of Egypt and Israel there ought to be a mutual record of their historical encounters. The poor record of their shared events convinced him that there was something wrong. "It is strange that there is no real link between the histories of Egypt and Israel for a period of many hundreds of years" [p. 4]. For example, during the reign of Solomon, during the weak 21st Dynasty, a pharaoh captures Gezer as a dowry for Solomon's new Egyptian wife. There is no Egyptian record of a royal marriage to any foreign king or any conquest of Gezer in the 21st Dynasty.

Velikovsky, having aligned the Middle Kingdom with the Sojourn and Exodus of the Israelites, then moved down the time corridor and matched the Hyksos with Joshua and the Judges, the reign of Ahmose I (18th Dynasty) to King Saul and the reigns of Amenhotep I and Thutmose I to King David. Hatshupset's visit to Punt was identified with the Queen of Sheba's visit to King Solomon. Then, in the reign of Rehoboam, in his 5th year, Pharaoh Shishak invaded Israelite, captured Megiddo and looted the Holy City, Jerusalem.

Velikovsky credited this invasion to Thutmose III who had the tribute taken from his invasion of Palestine's Kadesh (Holy City) pictured on the various walls of Karnak near Thebes. Conventionally, this city is thought to be a Canaanite Holy City in Phoenicia or even Syria. But when any of these temples had such wealth is enigmatic. The lack of any image or mention of any Canaanite, Philistine or Syro-Hittite god leaves no doubt that the temple of was none of these. Velikovsky favourably compared these items in number and metal composition to those described in the Bible, as belonging to Solomon's Temple. One must admit that the treasure belonged to the Israelites who were the only nation forbidden to make images of their God.

One hundred years later, came the famous el-Amarna letters previously mentioned. These fall into the late Omride or Jehu era. Velikovsky analysis of this era may be flawed but there is definitely a correlation. In both the Amarna letters and in the biblical text the Arameans are a significant military force in the region and the kings of the Hittites and Egyptians are the major players [2

Kings 7:6]. Furthermore, there are Hebrew idioms in the Amarna letters that would appear to deny that they were written prior to the Israelite conquest.

Velikovsky has the 18th Dynasty succeeded by the Libyan 22nd Dynasty. The first Libyan pharaoh, Sheshonq I, is no longer the scriptural Shishak but reigned just before Israel's recovery from the Arameans. After this point Egyptian/ Israelite chronologies can be synchronized within narrow limits. The scheme is completed by showing the 19th and the 26th Dynasties are the same as well as the 20th and 30th Dynasties. The 21st Dynasty is a series of priest-princes operating in the Persian period [Velikovsky, 1952, 1977 1978]. Thus the histories of the contact of the two nations are harmonized. The new MBII Exodus archaeological model then agrees with Velikovsky's Bible history harmony.

Thus, having set the Exodus/Conquest in MBIIB, the archaeological evidences and biblical dates at Jericho demanded that we make an additional 400-year (475 in total) adjustment to the Late Bronze Age so that we could synchronize the archaeology with biblical history. This down dates the beginning of the reign of Amenhotep III from 1400 BC to 925 BC in the reign of Ahab, similar to Velikovsky's scheme. No use was made of Velikovsky Egyptian evidences nor did Velikovsky make use of any of the assumptions or analyses above. Thus there are two independent lines of evidence that arrive at the same conclusion: that the extensive archaeological evidence of an MB IIB Exodus combined with the biblical history and archaeology of Jericho yields the exact same 475-year down dating of the Late Bronze that Velikovsky proposed and supported by evidence from Egyptology.

New Biblical Stratigraphic Model for Israel

If the Late Bronze Age is down dated by 4-5 centuries from 1550-1200 BC to 1075-825 BC then where do we put the strata already dated to those years? James has shown, as already mentioned, all over the Mediterranean there is a stratigraphic "Dark Age" between 1200-800 BC created by Petrie's Egyptian dates for Mycenaean pottery at the protest of the Greek archaeologists like Torr. Torr, although he lost the debate, was actually right in opposing Petrie's redating. The down dating of the Late Bronze 4-5 centuries then returns stratigraphy to the dates that Greek archaeologists gave or would have given the strata were it not for Petrie's erroneous redating of Mycenaean ware. To accommodate the Greek archaeology we redate the Late Bronze 1075-825 BC. The first stratigraphic benefit of the BSM is to fill the chronological gap between the Late Bronze and Iron Age in Anatolia, Greece, Sicily, North Africa, Spain and related areas. If the Late Bronze is down dated by 4-5 centuries but the Hyksos dates are advanced only 75 years what happens to the 1480-1075 era. To keep stratigraphic continuity another 400 years must be added to the length of the 13th/Hyksos era or SIP so that it dates are 1591-1075. The SIP now parallels the era of the Judges. The dates of the new BSM are illustrated in Table 3

Table 3 - Dates for the new Biblical Stratigraphic Model

 Archaeological era

 Egyptian Dynasties

Accepted Dates BSM Dates    Israelite History

 Middle Bronze IIa

 12th   2000-1750  1800-1600  Sojourn/Exodus

 Middle Bronze IIb/c

  13th /17th   1750-1550  1600-1075  Conquest/Judges

 Late Bronze I  18th   1550-1400  1075- 925   United Kingdom

 Late Bronze II   18th   1400-1330  925- 825  Divided Kingdom

The BSM resolves three problems exposed by the Specific Site Test. First, the BSM has by design answered the problem of the Late Bronze at Jericho. Second, it confirms that the Middle Bronze strata, Temple 1b and its Middle Bronze IIC pottery at Shechem extend to the era of Abimelech and the Temple of Baal Berith, 1152 BIC, as required by the Revision model. Abimelech's Shechem lay abandoned and under the new BSM, the abandonment belongs to the last century of the SIP era circa 1150-1080 BIC. Shiloh was also functioning as a cult center 600 years after the Exodus, not only in Saul's day but also to Jeroboam I, circa 980 BIC. This date is an Iron I date. Under the BSM it can be seen that the destruction level in Shiloh is at least 500 years after the MBIIB initial occupation in agreement with biblical text. Furthermore, the final destruction of Shiloh would appear to be the result of Aramean attack, circa 870 BIC rather than a Philistine one. Thus in the tests of specific sites above, all three points lost by the Revision for being a good fit rather than excellent are regained. The BSM provides an excellent fit to the biblical text at all tested sites.

The BSM also provides an explanation of the lack of Late Bronze sites in the hill country of Judah and Israel. As previously mentioned Finkelstein's analysis put all Conquest models in doubt because it appeared that either there were no Canaanites living in the hill country during the Conquest (LB Exodus) or that the Israelites abandoned the hill country after the Conquest (MB II Exodus). Now it can be seen that the Middle Bronze period extends down into the 12th/ 11th century when the collar-rimmed storage jars are found. Thus there is no gap and Iron I strata sits directly over MB II strata because Iron I directly follows MB II in the hill country. This denies the final substantive criticism of the historical Exodus and Conquest by archaeology.

In the Middle Bronze II period, the store cities, Ramesses and Pithom are being built. The Semitic people of the Nile delta disappear during the 12th Dynasty and are replaced. The nation plunged into poverty and instability. The Sinai had no kingdoms, tribal or otherwise. The cities of Joshua's with a few exceptions were present. The land was prosperous and filled with walled cities. There was a population explosion. Jericho and Hazor were heavily burned. In conclusion, the Middle Bronze II period provides all the archaeological requirements to correlate to the historical biblical model.

References

Aardsma, G.E. The Exodus Happened 2450 B.C. , Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Walsh, R. Editor, 1998. Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship.

Aharoni, Y. "Arad", The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976), pp. 38-39

Ahlstrom, G. Who were the Israelites?, (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986)

Alt, A. Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, 1967, (orig. 1925)

Anstey, M., The romance of biblical chronology , 1913, Marshal Bros., London.

Bartlett, J., Jericho, 1982, Lutterworth Press, Guildford, Surrey, p. 96.

Bienkowski, P., Jericho was Destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age not the Late Bronze Age, 1990, Biblical Archaeological Review, Vol. 16, (1990), No. 5.

Bietak, M., Avaris: The Hyksos Capital, 1996, British Museum Press, London.

Bietak, M., Contra Bimson, Biblical Archaeological Review, Vol. 14, (1988), No. 4, p. 54.

Bimson, J.J., Redating the Exodus and Conquest, (2nd Ed.), 1981, The Almond Press, Sheffield.

Bruins, H.J. & Vander Plicht, J., The Exodus Enigma, Nature Vol. 382, (July, 1996), p. 213.

Courville, D., The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Vol 1,1971, Challenge Books, Loma Linda.

De Vries, S.J. Chronology of the Old Testament, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, G.A. Buttrick, Editor, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1962, Vol.1, p.584

Dever, W. Is there any Archaeological Evidencefor the Exodus? Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, Ernest Frerichs & Leonard Lesko editors, Winona Lake IND, Eisenbraun, 1997.

Finkelstein, I. Shiloh Yields Some but not all of its Secrets, Biblical Archaeological Review, Jan/Feb 1986, p. 26

Finkelstein, I. 1988, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society

Franken, H.J. & Power, W.J.A., Review of Glueck's Exploration in Eastern Palestine, VT 21, p. 123

Gasche, H., Armstrong, J.A., Cole, S.W. and Gurzadyan, V.G., Dating the fall of Babylon: A Reappraisal of Second-millennium Chronology, 1998, University of Ghent and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Giveon, R. 1964. Toponymes Ouest-Asiatique a Soleb. Vetus Testamentum 14: 239-255

Gottwald, N. The Tribes of Yahweh, (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1979)

Grimal, N., A History of Ancient Egypt, 1992, Blackwell, Oxford.

Habachi, L. Khatana-Qantir: Importance, Annales du Service des Antiquities de l'Egypte, 52: 443-59

Halpern, B., Radical Exodus Redating Fatally Flawed, Biblical Archaeological Review, Vol. 13, (1987), No.6.

Hoyle, F., Nicholas Copernicus, 1973, Harper and Row, NY. p.79

Ibach, Expanded Archaeological Survey of the Heshbon Region. Andrews University Seminary Studies 16:201-13, 1978, Berien Springs, MI: Andrews University

James, P. et al. Centuries in Darkness, 1993, Rutgers University Press, Brunswick, NJ.

Josephus, Against Apion. Josephus: Complete works. (Translated Whiston), 1960, Kregel Pub. Grand Rapids, MI.

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews. Josephus: Complete works. (Translated Whiston), 1960, Kregel Pub. Grand Rapids, MI.

Kempinski, A., 1983. Syrien und Palastina in der laetzten Phase der Mittelbronze IIB Zeit. Wiesbaden; Otto Harrassowitz, p.225.

Kenyon, K., Archaeology in the Holy Land, 1960, E. Binn, London, p. 198.

Kenyon, K., Palestine in the Middle Bronze, CAH (3rd Edition), 1973, Cambridge Press, Vol. II.1, p.100.

Kitchen, K.A. The Exodus, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol 2, p. 702, David Noel Freedman, Editor, NY, Doubleday, 1992

Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lemche, N.P. Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society before the Monarchy, (Leiden: Brill, 1985)

Livingstone, D.P. and Bimson, J.J., Redating the Exodus, Biblical Archaeological Review, Vol. 13, No. 5, (1987), pp. 40 53,66.

Mazar A. Archaeology of the Bible Lands 10,000 - 586 BC

Mendenhall, G.E., The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine, Biblical Archaeologist, 25:66-87

Meyer, S. 1998. The Date of the Exodus According to Ancient Authors, Phildelphia: Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies.

Montgomery, A., Towards a Biblically Inerrant Chronology. Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, R. Walsh et al., Editors, 1998, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA., p. 395-406.

Moran, W., The el-Amarna Letters, 1992, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Noth, M., The History of Israel, 1960, London; Adam and Charles Black.

Petrie, W.H.F., The Egyptian Bases of Greek History. Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol 11, (1890) pp. 271-77

Pfeiffer, C., The Biblical World: A Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, 1966, Baker Books. Grand Rapids.

Redford, D.B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton:1992. p. 265

Rohl, D., Pharaohs and Kings: a Biblical Quest, 1995, Crown Publishers. N.Y.

Schaeffer, C. Ugaritica I p.18, (note 2 as cited by Smith in Alalakh and chronology.)

Smith, S. 1940. Alalakh and Chronology. Luzac and Company. London.

Stiebing, W. H., Out of the Desert, 1989, Buffalo; Prometheus Books.

Stager, L.E., Shechem Where Abimelech Massacred a Thousand, Biblical Archaeological Review, Vol 29:4 Jul/Aug 2003 p.26-69

Torr, C., Aegean pottery in Egypt, The Academy, Vol. 42, (1892), No. 1064. p. 270.

Torr, C., Memphis and Mycenae, 1896, Cambridge University Press.

Velikovsky, I., Ages in Chaos, 1952, Doubleday & Co. Garden City, N.Y.

Velikovsky, I., Peoples of the Sea, 1977, Doubleday &Co., Garden City, N.Y.

Velikovsky, I., Ramses II and his Times, 1978, Doubleday &Co, Garden City, N.Y.

Vycichl, V. 1942. Aegytische Ortsnamen in der Bibel, Zeitschrift for Aegyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, Vol. 76, pp. 79-93.

Van Seters, J., The Hyksos, 1966, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Wilson, J. A., List of Asiatic Countries under the Egyptian Empire, ANET(3rd Ed.), Ed. J. Pritchard, 1969, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., p. 242.

Wilson, J. A., The Admonitions of Ipuwer, ANET (3rd Ed.) Ed. J. Pritchard, 1969b, Princeton University Press, N.J., p. 441.

Weinstein, J., Exodus and Archaeological Reality, Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, Ernest Frerichs and Leonard Lesko editors, Winona Lake IND, Eisenbraun, 1997.

Woolley, L. Alalakh - An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay. 1937-49, 1955, The Society of Antiquaries, London.

Wood, B. Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? , Biblical Archaeological Review, Vol. 16, (1990), No. 2, pp. 44 57

Wright, E., The First Campaign at Tell Balatah, Bulletin of the American Society of Oriental Research

Revised July 9, 2004.

 

Revisionism, Biblical Chronology in the Light of Stratigraphy at Tell Brak

by Alan Montgomery

Tell Brak is a mound situated in the Khabur Valley area just west of the ancient city of Ashur. It was part of the homeland of the Mitannian / Hurrian peoples and may have been an important political centre during the time of the Middle Assyrian empire and the Late Assyrian empire. Tell Brak must have been a point of conflict between the Assyrians and the Mitannian kings. Some Mitannian kings are known from the El Amarna letters to the Egyptian Pharaohs of the 18th dynasty. This provides contact with both the Egyptian and Assyrian worlds both of which have established chronologies. The stratigraphy of Tell Brak offers the opportunity to examine a site that might have both Egyptian and Assyrian chronological markers and to compare the accuracy of the two chronologies with respect to one another.

Oates [1] lays out the stratigraphy and ceramics of Tell Brak as follows:

BLevels 9-8

Old Babylonian (OB) represented by the Khabur pottery types. These follow the time of Shamsi-Adad I - dated 1800-1600 BC. According to the latest Mesopotamian chronology these dates should be altered to 1700-1500 [2].

BLevel 7

This is the intermediate level between OB and Early Mitanni.

BLevel 6

Early Mitanni ware appears. Immediately after the fall of Babylon, Hurrians are known to have dominated the Assyrians. A Hurrian palace was constructed at this time. Oates dated this to the latter part of the 16th century.

BLevel 5

Middle Mitanni ware appears. Hurrian domination of Assyria continued. At the beginning of Level 5 is debris from a natural catastrophe. First evidence of influence from the west; parallels with material from Alalakh.

BLevel 4

Late Mitanni ware appears. Major Stratum showing long and prosperous occupation. There are two destruction layers. More western influence is apparent as well as Assyrian influence.

BLevel 3

Late Mitanni ware continues and there is a prominent re-paving of surfaces.

BLevel 2

Late Mitanni ware continues. Oates dates for Level 2 begin in the last half 14th century and end about 1250. Late Amarna letters and other Middle Babylonian texts appear for the first time.

BLevel 1

Appearance of either Middle Assyrian (MA) III pottery according to Pfalzner or according to Oates MA I types. Mycenaean pottery was found. Some Late Assyrian 900-700 finds on surface were unstratified; e.g. Hand of Ishtar.

Data

What do the actual artifacts tell us?

Level 1 B Mycenaean III B1 stirrup jar at the bottom of Level IB would normally be dated between 1330 and 1260 BC. Pfalzner is the world=s leading authority on MA pottery and his opinion concerning the Level I MA 3 pottery is hereby accepted. Boundaries of MA 3 are not yet well defined but it starts about Tiglath Pileser I circa 1114. Thus it is evident that the dating of Assyrian pottery and Mycenaean pottery are incompatible. This forces Oates to classify the Assyrian ware as MA I rather then accept the incongruent MA III designation.

Level 2 B Ivories appear paralleled in LB Alalakh IV circa 1450 - 1400. Texts of el Amarna Late Mitanni Kings Artashuma and Tushratta circa 1340-30 and a seal of Shaushtater circa 1450 appear with Middle Babylonian epigraphy. Seal impressions parallel Nuzi II, circa late 14th century 7[1, p.274]. There were 2 destructions; the latter dated by C-14 tests on charcoal from a doorpost to 1293 BC. Some mosaic glass #30 [1, p.83] is paralleled at al Rimah in strata ascribed to T-N 1 [circa 1220]. Bowl 3, p.29 also p.236, is a geometric design attested only in the Neo-Assyrian eras. There is no epigraphic evidence of the Assyrians at Level II. There is clearly some dating that is incompatible. Late Bronze aged materials dating from 1450 - 1330 by parallels from the west are contradicted by Carbon-14 (which on charcoal samples is biased high) and Iron Age materials dated (1220 - 900) from Assyrian sources.

Level 3 B Is marked by some destruction levels overlain by hardened red libn as though a new start were required after a major destruction.

Level 4 B There are 5 building levels in level 4 indicating long occupation. Mitanni ware is paralleled at Alalakh IV circa 15th century [1, p.72]. There is a sheet metal disk [1, p. 117] which has parallels in the MB II 17th / 16th century at Tell Mardikh . See #67 on page 270 for drawing. Also there is a glazed vessel parallel to 16th century Alalakh V [1, p.117]. Small stone statuettes [1, p. 106] in fill under Level 4 house parallel Alalakh V. The parallels with Alalakh IV/V show a time that is transitional between the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze in Egypt, circa early 16th century in the conventional time frame.

Level 5 B In Level 5 there is more Nuzi pottery, red-edged pottery and a grey burnished ware. It has two destruction debris levels. There are some frit-headed nails. Oates [1, p.240] comments that there is a parallel process used on pendants in an MA grave in Assur. See also p. 117 where he mentions that this technique is known from the MB in Levant. There is ovoid shaped grooved travertine vases that have parallels in the 12th Dynasty, MB II Ebla and Ugarit 19th / 16th century. Red-edged bowls begin to appear in numbers in Level 5 and continue to Level 1. Oates, p. 73 notes parallel at al-Rimah in 15/14th century MA context. Burnished Greyware pottery in Level 5/6 destruction layers is paralleled by late fourteenth century Greyware at Nuzi. [1, p.73]

Level 6 B There is a destruction layer at the top of Level 6 that appears to be a natural disaster. There is plenty of Mitanni ware and glazed pottery, which Oates [1, p. 72], noted, has parallels in Alalakh 6, MBII, 17th/16th century.

Comments

Level 9 and 8 are Old Babylonian. Using the latest Mesopotamian chronology by Gasche et Al [2] they should be dated to 1700-1500. Level 7 is a transitional layer followed by Hurrian/ Mitanni strata Level 6 circa 15th century. At this time the Hurrians dominated the Assyrians. In Level 5 the burnished Greyware with parallels at Nuzi Level II [1, p. 66] and the red-edged bowls paralleled at nearby al-Rimah [1, p. 73] should date the level to the 14th century. In addition, there are some frit-headed nails [1, p. 240] with parallel processes used on pendants in a Middle Assyrian (MA) grave in Assur circa 14th/13th century. So far all makes reasonable sense. However, in Level 2, there is a Neo-Assyrian geometric pattern Bowl 3, [1, p. 29, p. 236]. This means Levels 4 and 3 are 13th to 11th centuries so that Level 2 can be placed in the 10th and 9th century.

However, this produces serious problems for other chronological markers, namely those determined by Egyptian chronology, primarily from Alalakh. In Level 6 (Late 15th century), there is glazed pottery paralleled at Alalakh Level 6 dated to the 17/16th century. There is a least one and as much as two centuries' difference. In Level 5 (14th century) ovoid shaped grooved travertine vases, typically 19/16th are found. The 14th / 13th century frit-nail technique is known from the MB II in the Levant. There is a two to five century difference in Level 5. In Level 4 (13/12th), there is a sheet metal disk, which has parallels in MB II Tell Mardikh dated to the 17/16th [1, p. 118 ]. Also there is a glazed vessel [1, p.117] and small stone statuettes [p.106] with parallels to Alalakh 5 {16/15th} century. There is two to four centuries' difference in Level 4. In Level 2 (10th /9th) there are ivories with parallels to Alalakh 4 15th / 14th centuries and texts of late Mitanni Kings Artashumara and Tushratta late14th century. At Level Ib (9th) is a Mycenaean LHIII B1 14th/13th stirrup jar. Levels 1 and 2 contain four to five centuries' difference.

There is a clear pattern of chronological discord from the Level 5 down to Level 1. Egyptian dates are consistently 200 to 500 years higher than their Assyrian counterparts. This is exactly what would be expected under a Velikovsky-like revision. The Geometric bowl's earliest date is 900 and the Mycenaean jar is 1260 at the latest. This makes the gap a minimum of 360 years, an amount that exceeds the revisions of James and Rohl. More probably, the gap is over 400 years.

Furthermore, the Amarna texts at Brak have "Middle Babylonian" epigraphy, as indeed do all the Amarna letters. If these letters belong to the 9th century as Velikovsky proposed, rather than the conventional 14th century date, then there might be Assyrian influence in these letters. Since Assyrian influence in Syria did not occur before the 13th century, such an influence on 14th century documents would be hard to explain. According to Soden, an Assyriologist, Amarna letters from northern Syria display "astonishing" Assyriansms [3]. Soden does not identify whether these are Middle or Late Assyrianisms. However, these Assyrianisms are not restricted to northern Syria. Moran notes the same thing about the Jerusalem letters [4]. This suggests that the Assyrianisms reflect a Late Assyrian context, as Assyria had no influence in Jerusalem in the era of Judges nor was Jerusalem a capital city at that time.

Gadd, referring to Middle Babylonian tablets of the 'Middle Kassite' period, says, "But the salutations which follow this (the introduction) show a characteristic increase of formality over those of the Hammurabi period (17th century). One official, writing to another, adds after his name 'your brother' and the phrase 'be it well with you', which is ubiquitous in the "Amarna and Late Assyrian letters [Gadd, 1975, p.39]." (Italics added) These 'Middle Kassite' tablets confirm that the

Assyrianisms of the Amarna letters are Late Assyrian. Further confirmation stems from the fact that these texts have similarities to Neo-Babylonian texts at Nippur, circa 755 - 612, Cole states "The terminology used to denote alliances in the letters from Nippur is remarkably similar to the language employed in the Aramaic texts ...in the letters of the el Amarna age [Cole, p. 27-8.].

The above interpretation of the stratigraphy of Tell Brak agrees with the evidence of the Amarna letters; that the time of the Amarna letters is Late Assyrian i.e. 10th / 9th century and not the 14th century. This demands a significant revision of Egyptian chronology based on the superior chronology of the Assyrian king lists. This confirms Velikovsky's revision in size and direction. Of greater importance is the fact that none of these evidences is dependent on any supposedly unconventional technique of moving "ghost" dynasties or any specific reordering of Egyptian dynasties. This said, the end of the 18th Dynasty in the 10th/ 9th century leaves a maximum of 200 years to cover the 600 years until the conquest of Egypt by the Ethiopian Emperor Piankh. Since the Libyans must occupy the bulk of these years there is virtually no room for the 19th to 21st Dynasties. Therefore, one must accept some Velikovsky-like scheme.

What effect does this have on biblical chronology? If the 18th Dynasty is brought forward 400 years to match the evidence from Tell Brak, there is one obvious casualty in the arsenal of Christian apologetics. Conservative Christians promote a 15th century date of the Exodus against a 13th century liberal date in the 19th Dynasty. The liberal date suffers from chronological problems and the fact that a 19th Dynasty Egyptian stele mentions the Israelites as an established people in Canaan, not leaving enough time for the Exodus, the wanderings in the Sinai and the Conquest under Joshua. The conservative date, accepting conventional Egyptian chronology, puts the Exodus in the middle of the 18th Dynasty. The conservative position suffers from the fact that much is known about the 18th Dynasty and nothing is known about oppression of Nile Delta slaves, Moses, the plagues, loss of Semitic slaves nor general economic and military collapse that would naturally follow the Exodus. It is devoid of people and history that could link it with the Exodus. (For a inconclusive attempt to find Moses in the 18th Dynasty see D. Hansen, Moses and Hatshepsut, Bible and Spade, Vol. 16 (2003) , No. 1). To move the 18th Dynasty forward 400 years would, of course, eliminate the 18th Dynasty as a candidate for the dynasty of the Exodus and a fortiori the 19th Dynasty. I am convinced that the promotion of only these 2 views only leads to increased skepticism on the part of honest scholars of ancient history.

References

[1] Oates, D, Oates, J. and McDonald, Helen, Excavations at Tell Brak: Volume 1 The Mitanni and Old Babylonian periods, 1999, British School Of Archaeology in Iraq.

[2] Gasche, H., Armstrong, J.A., Cole, S.W. and Gurzadyan, V.G., Dating the fall of Babylon: A Reappraisal of Second-millennium Chronology, 1998, University of Ghent and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

[3] Soden, W, Sumer, Vol. 42 (1986), p. 106.

[4] Moran, W.L., Unity and Diversity, Goedicke et al., Editors, 1975, p. 154.

[5] Gadd, J., Assyria and Babylonia 1370-1300 BC, Cambridge Ancient History. II:2, 1975, Cambridge University, Cambridge.

[6] Cole, S., Nippur in Late Assyrian Times, 755-612 BC, State Archives of Assyria, Study IV, 1996, Helsinki, p. 27-8 posted, May 15, 2003.

 

TOWARDS A BIBLICALLY INERRANT CHRONOLOGY

 ALAN MONTGOMERY, B.Sc.(Hon)Email: alamontgomery@rogers.com

218 MCCURDY DRKANATA, ON, K2L 2L6, CANADA

KEY WORDS: Bible; chronology, ancient; prophecy; Exodus; captivity; Jericho; archaeology; Bronze Age, Middle and Late; Iron Age; jubilee year; sabbatical year; Velikovsky

ABSTRACT

A new biblical chronology is proposed which dates the exodus at 1591 BC. This chronology is constructed from the biblical text including the prophecies of Daniel, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The results are shown to be consistent with known sabbatical and jubilee years. The archaeological consequences of dating the fall of Jericho to the Middle Bronze (1551 BC ) are examined and followed through to the Iron Age. The new interpretation of Palestinian archaeological evidence suggested by the new chronology resolves some longstanding historical problems.

Introduction

Scriptures have been written with much more profound purposes than chronology yet nowhere is it written that the details of the text are less true than the main message. "In the Bible, even if we regard it simply as the annals of the Hebrew race, we have a remarkable exception to the practice of all other nations of antiquity, in respect of keeping their national records, an exception so remarkable that it would be difficult or impossible to account for it apart from the Divine inspiration." Mauro [11, p2] is referring to the Bible's quality of maintaining an unbroken series of written records that allow dating of events from creation to Cyrus the Great. The credibility of biblical chronology is such that, until the 19th century, scholars determined the age of the world from biblical chronology. The most famous of biblical chronologists was Archbishop Ussher whose 17th century chronology placed Creation at 4004 BC. This chronology is still used in the margin of the King James and other versions of the Bible. Claims that Ussher placed creation at 9:00 a.m. October 23 are untrue. It was, in fact, the opinion of Dr. John Lightfoot, a contemporary of Ussher [7, p6].

Inerrancy and Chronological Criteria

Jesus said that the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). He gave His personal assurance that the Scripture is holy - free from impurity or corruption. Inerrancy is a doctrine supported by the Scriptures themselves and does not need rationalism or archaeology to validate them. Some may argue that the historical accounts in the Scripture are plain enough to be useful in demonstrating inerrancy. In principle this may be true. In practice, there are areas where the currently accepted history and archaeology are in contradiction to the plainest meaning of the biblical text. Is the Bible or is the current evidence and understanding deficient? For example, scholars once claimed that no king of Assyria named Sargon existed in the days of Isaiah the prophet. Decades later, the site of Sargon's palace was uncovered and his reign during the time of Isaiah was accepted. During this time believers had to respond by accepting the Scriptural statements as true by faith in their Author

and to wait for God to vindicate Himself. Thus, it is impossible to justify the doctrine of biblical inerrancy by rational interpretations of evidences alone.

Biblical inerrancy rests not just on divine inspiration but also on divine interpretation of the Holy Spirit. An inerrant Bible interpreted by human wisdom alone can be just as misleading and dangerous as any human philosophy or religion. It has been the intent of the author from the beginning not only to use the evidence of the inerrant Bible but also to yield to the Holy Spirit's inerrant interpretation. This desire resulted in using the following criteria:

Biblical sources must be preferred to secular sources;

All biblical chronological numbers must be accounted for, including prophecies;

The chronological numbers in the Bible must be taken at face value;

Variations of chronological numbers can only be allowed for textual reasons. Non-textual considerations which lead to contradictions of the text cannot be not allowed; and

When biblical data are not available, other sources such as Josephus and Ptolemy may be used.

I deem a chronology which follows the above principles as a Biblically inerrant chronology (BIC). It should be pointed out that BICs are not necessarily unique and the construction below is not uniquely a BIC. Yet, it will become apparent that there are fewer options under BIC rules than might be expected.

Extra-biblical sources and astronomical dates

The Bible identifies dates only in terms of the reigns of its kings. Contemporaneous historical records are not alone sufficient to connect biblical events with our system of numbering years Anno Domini (AD). Chronologists must rely on later writers, particularly Ptolemy, an astronomer who lived in the 3rd century AD in Alexandria, Egypt. He gave us Ptolemy's canon which lists the kings of Babylon back to Nabonassar in 747 BC and which is accepted as accurate to that date. Josephus, a Jewish general and historian, was given access to the holy books of the temple in Jerusalem before it was destroyed by Titus in 70 AD. From these he composed the Antiquities of the Jews, a Hebrew history from Creation to his own day.

Generally speaking, most ancient astronomical data are unreliable for pinpointing absolute dates. In particular, Newton reports that the eclipses mentioned in Ptolemy's Syntaxis ( also called Almagest) are fabricated and " are useless for chronology" [12, p375]. These eclipses happened on the dates Ptolemy stated but he has calculated them according to his theories and then transferred the dates to other calendars. Under such methods any chronology, even a wrong one, would be consistent with the eclipses. Newton does refer to two astronomical texts which are useful because they are contemporaneous observations. The first, is dated to the 7th year of a king. Data for Venus and Mars and a conjunction of Mercury are sufficient to pinpoint the year to 523-22 BC which is the 7th of Cambyses by the conventional chronology. This would place the 1st of Cyrus at 538 BC. In addition there is a document VAT 4956 which is dated to the 37th of Nebuchadnezzar and contained even more detailed observations. The position of all the planets over many months are reported with their dates of observation. Together they form "quite strong confirmation" of the date 568 BC for the 37th of Nebuchadnezzar [12, p375].

Daniel's prophecy and the Persian empire

The initial date for this paper is AD 27, the date of Jesus' first passover. This occurred 46 years after the commencement of Herod's temple (John 2:20) in 20 BC. (Note that AD 27 less 46 years is the year -19 which, because there is no year 0, is 20 BC.) The timing of Jesus' ministry and death was prophesied in Daniel 9:24-27. From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the appearing of the Messiah was to be 69 weeks of years, i.e. 7x69 = 483 years. In the middle of the 70th week He was to put an end to sacrifices. The traditional Christian interpretation of Daniel [14, pp383-389] places the beginning of the 70 weeks at the decree given to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in his 7th year (Ezra 7:11-28), which was 483 years before the first year of Jesus ministry, 26 AD or 458 BC. This agrees with the date calculated from the kings and reigns of Ptolemy's Canon for the 7th year of Artaxerxes I . Then, 464 BC is year 1 of Artaxerxes I. Contemporaneous Persian business and official records confirm the accepted reign lengths of the preceding Persian kings back to Cyrus the Great yielding 538 BC for the 1st year of Cyrus. This is the year of his great edict releasing the Jews from captivity in Babylon under the Chaldeans. Ptolemy's Canon gives the same date for the 1st of Cyrus.

Jeremiah and the dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar

Jeremiah prophesied in the 4th year of Jehoiakim that Judah and the nations would serve the Chaldeans king Nebuchadnezzar for 70 years (Jer 25:1-11). The 70 years started in the 4th year of Jehoiakim, the same year Nebuchadnezzar, in his 1st year, defeated Pharaoh Necho in the battle of Carchemish (Jer 46:2) and ended in the 1st year of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1; II Chr 36:21-23). The 70 years should start 608 BC or perhaps 607 BC inclusive reckoning. The fall of Jerusalem, 18 years later, ought to be dated to 590 or possibly 589 BC. In the second year of Darius the Great, 520 BC, in a prophetic message to Zechariah (Zech:1:1-12), the Angel of the Lord pleads for mercy for Jerusalem with which God has been angry 70 years (no temple had operated for 70 years). This should place the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar in 590 BC or 589 BC in agreement with Jeremiah's prophecy. Again ( Jer 27:7) he prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar, his son and his son's son would rule in Babylon until God judged them. According to Josephus [9, I.20], a priest named Berossus wrote a history of Babylon . He said the first Chaldean king, Nabopolassar, ruled 21 years. Then came his son Nebuchadnezzar, 43 years, and then his son Amel-Marduk 2 years. His brother-in-law, Neriglissar, overthrew him and reigned 4 years and was followed by his own son Labashi-Marduk 9 months. He was unfit to rule and was overthrown by a conspiracy who chose Nabonidus as their king. Nabonidus surrendered to Cyrus the Persian in his 17th year. Accordingly , from the battle of Carchemish (605 BC) to the fall of Babylon (539 BC) are 67 years, inclusive reckoning. Jeremiah disagrees with Berossus (and Ptolemy) on the length of the Chaldean dynasty, the number of its kings and their familial relationships.

What do Christian scholars say about the dates of the 70 years of the Chaldean empire? Jamieson, Fausset & Brown give the following on Jeremiah 25:11: "The seventy years probably begin in the 4th of Jehoiakim..., they end with the first year of Cyrus (Persian), who, on taking Babylon, issued an edict for the restoration of the Jews." [8, p626] This statement is faithful to the text but it fails to deal with the chronology. On Jeremiah 27:7, they say "Nebuchadnezzar had 4 successors...but Neriglissar and Labosoarchod were not in direct male line; so the prophecy held good for the son and grandson and the intermediate two were omitted. [8, p629] " Is this not a tacit admission that accepted history and the prophecy are in conflict? Payne [14, p339] gives several options. He says of the 70 years of Jeremiah's prophecy: "The exile extended technically from the first deportation of Judah in 605 BC to one of the following dates: 539 BC, the Persian capture of Babylon; 538 BC, the decree of Cyrus authorizing the return (to Jerusalem); 537 BC, by the fall of which the first exiles had come to Palestine; or 536 BC when the temple's reconstruction was commenced." Only

the second option agrees to Ezra 1:1 that the 70 years ended with the decree of Cyrus. None of these options is 70 years long . Archer [3] uses accepted dates but does not mention Jeremiah's prophesy as a difficulty.

Berossus may have obtained his data from the memorial plate of the mother of Nabonidus. She says she lived "From the time of Ashurbanipal, the king of Assyria, in whose rule I was born: 21 years under Ashurbanipal, 4 years under Ashur-etillu-ilani his son, 21 years under Nabopolassar, 43 years under Nebuchadnezzar, 2 years under Amel-Marduk, 4 years under Neriglissar, in total 95 years" (Italics indicates numbers had to be supplied by scholars because they were missing from the tablet.) During this time the god Sin was not worshiped in his temple, but now she gives thanks to Sin "from the time of Ashurbanipal to the 6th year of Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the son of my womb, for 104 years happy". [15, p311-12]. This suggests that in the accession year of Nabonidus she was 104 - 6 = 98 years old - not 95 years as the sum of regnal years above. There are 3 years missing. Later, in 1956, a second copy of this memorial was found [15, pp 560-1 ]. This time all the numbers were present. Some missing numbers were corrected : Ashurbanipal to 22 and Ashur-etillu-ilani to 3 years. However, the 6th of Nabonidus found in the original was now given as the 9th of Nabonidus. Had the 3 missing years been found?

The first business documents in the accession year of Labashi-Marduk's reign are dated to Nisan, first month and the last are dated to Sivan, third month. If Nabonidus assassinated Labashi-Marduk that same year, then the first business documents in his reign should be dated in or after the third month. Yet, they are dated to the second month. Thus, either Labashi-Marduk reigned one or more years before Nabonidus or that he did not precede Nabonidus at all. If the former is true then certainly the second copy of his mother's memorial plate cannot be true and the first copy must be amended to add a three year reign for Labashi-Marduk. If the latter is true then all the known historical sources, including Berossus, have the kings in the wrong order. A similar difficulty exists if Nebuchadnezzar followed Nabopolassar [13, p10-11].

Velikovsky [18, pp 103-113] analyzed the archaeological evidences of the Chaldean dynasty and found substantive evidences that Berossus' account was erroneous with respect to the order of the kings. For example, King Neriglissar stated he found the palace and the most important temple, Esagila, in a state of disrepair. This cannot follow the death of Nebuchadnezzar because he boosted of the extravagant care he took of all the Babylonian temples and his palace. According to Velikovsky, the Chaldeans came from Hattusas in central Turkey (textbooks usually refer to this city as the capital of the Hittite empire). If this identification is true, then Chaldean King Mursilis II can be identified as the Babylonian King Nabopolassar. He had two sons; the older was Muwatallis aka King Neriglissar and the younger was Hattusilis III aka Nebuchadnezzar. Neriglissar, according to Chaldean records, ruled after his father and was followed by his son, Labashi-Marduk. Nebuchadnezzar, rather than Nabonidus, usurped the throne from him and either had him killed or drove him into exile. Nebuchadnezzar then attempted to justify his legitimacy by claiming that he was the first born and incorporated Neriglissar's years into his own so that he appeared to reign from his father's death. Velikovsky concludes that what Berossus reported is a forgery. I believe the true history is as follows: the battle of Carchemish took place in the year that Nabopolassar died, 608 BC. Neriglissar became king and reigned 4 years until his death in 605 BC. Afterward Labashi-Marduk reigned a few months then was killed or driven away by Nebuchadnezzar who ruled 40 years, 604-565 BC. He was followed by his son Amel-Marduk and his grandson Nabonidus. I differ with Velikovsky 's view that there were two Neriglissars.

We then have three perspectives in operation: the Jewish, Nebuchadnezzar's and the historical. Since Nebuchadnezzar in his 8th year captured Jehoiachin (II Kings 24:12) and died 36 years later in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity he is counted as ruling 44 years from the Jewish

viewpoint. From Nebuchadnezzar's view he had an accession year plus 43 regnal years. From the historical view 4 regnal years of Neriglissar were followed by 40 regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar. The astronomers, in order to keep their calculations straight, used the last viewpoint so that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year (605 - 37 =568) was 568 BC as indicated in the section on astronomical dating. Amel-Marduk succeeded Nebuchadnezzar (II Kings 25:27). He supposedly reigned 2 years. In order for Nabonidus' mother to be 104 years in the 6th of Nabonidus Amel-Marduk must have ruled another 7 years. Amel-Marduk, who was followed by his son, Nabonidus. Nabonidus ruled 17 years. Belshazzar, the great grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, was co-regent with his father when Daniel interpreted the famous writing of the wall (Dan 5). This revised history agrees with Jeremiah's prophecy as to the number of kings, their familial relationships and their total reign.

The Divided Kingdom

From the 1st of Jehoiakim, here 611 BC, to the beginning of Hezekiah is a simple matter of adding the reigns of the Judean kings: Josiah 31 years, Amon 2 years, Manasseh 55 years and Hezekiah 29 years or 728 BC. In the 6th year of Hezekiah, 9th year of Hoshea, or 723 BC, Samaria fell to Assyrian King Shalmaneser V. Note that this is only 1 year different than the accepted date which supposes that Sargon II ruled 17 years. Actually, events in his reign are sometimes dated ambiguously. Each time, the same event is recorded, it is recorded 2 regnal years apart. Apparently, Sargon II attempted to steal the glory of the fall of Samaria from Shalmaneser V by adding the last two years of his reign to his own 15 years. In conventional history Sargon II ruled from 721-705 BC but should only be credited with the years 719-705 BC. Shalmaneser V should be credited with an extra 2 years (total 7 years) 726-720 BC. In this chronology, Sargon II and Shalmaneser V are moved back 3 years to 722-708 and 729-723 BC respectively. Table 1 summarizes the results to this point

TABLE 1FROM THE FALL OF SAMARIA TO THE END OF THE EXILE

538 BC to 723 BC

NAME OF KINGOR EVENT

DATEBC

DURATION

Shalmaneser V 729 1 (7 year reign)

Hezekiah's 1st regnal year 728 5

Fall of Samaria 723 8

Sennacherib's invasion 715 5

Siege of Jerusalem 710 11

Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jehoiakim 699 88

1st Jehoiakim 611 3

4th Jehoiakim, 1st NebuchadnezzarBattle of Carchemish

608 11

4th Zedekiah :Ezekiel's prophecy 597 7

11th Zedekiah : Jerusalem burned 590 25

Neb. dies; Jehoiachin released by A-M 565 27

1st Cyrus - end of exile 538 -

Thiele's interpretation of the late divided kingdom raises real difficulties during the reign of Hezekiah. In the record of King Sennacherib's 3rd campaign, conventionally dated to 701 BC, but here dated to 715 BC, he invaded Judah and Philistia. Having defeated the Egyptians and Philistines at Eltekeh , he captured the towns of Judah, deported 200,000 Jews and extracted tribute from Hezekiah. Then, Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem. On this the Assyrian records and the Bible agree. The Scriptures say that the fall of Samaria, here dated at 723 BC, was the 6th year of Hezekiah (II Kings 18:10). The invasion of Judah by Sennacherib, King of Assyria, shortly thereafter, was in the 14th year of Hezekiah (II Kings 18:13) - only 8 years apart. Thiele's chronology has the fall of Samaria in 722 BC, Hezekiah's accession year in 715 BC and his 14th year in 701 BC - 21 years apart . He insists that Hezekiah and Hosea had no contact at all. He says "...it is of paramount importance that synchronisms (II Kings 18:1, 8, 10) between him (Hezekiah) and Hosea be recognized as late and artificial." [ 12, p174], i.e. they are false. Clearly, this interpretation fails as a BIC. Other scholars resolve this by asserting that Hezekiah was co-regent with Ahaz during the time of the siege of Samaria. This is negated by the text of II Kings 16:2 and 17:1 which tells us that Hosea began to reign in the 12th year of Ahaz's 16 year reign and reigned for 9 years. Archer [3] resolves this by amending the 14th year of Hezekiah to the 24th. But the problem here is historical not textual. Anstey resolved this apparent contradiction by noting that Sennacherib's records refer to his third "campaign" not his third "year". He proposed [2, p213] that Sennacherib did not give a regnal year because his campaign did not take place during his own reign but in that of his father, Sargon II, 8 years after the fall of Samaria.

From the textual values of the synchronism in the Bible, table 2A was constructed and the end dates are completed and summarized in table 2.

Table 2A - SYNCHRONISMS USED TO CONSTRUCT TABLE 2

STARTDATE

FROM TO YEARS SAME ASII Kings

ReferenceEND

DATE

723 9th Hoshea 1st 8 12th Ahaz 17:1 731

731 12th Ahaz Accession 12 17th Pekah 16:1 743

743 17th Pekah 1st 16 52nd Uzziah 15:27 759

759 52nd Uzziah 1st 51 27th Jeroboam II 15:1 810

810 27th Jeroboam II Accession 27 15th Amaziah 14:23 837

837 15th Amaziah 1st 14 1st Amaziah - 851

852 40th Joash 1st 39 7th Jehu 12:1 891

891 7th Jehu 1st 6 - 12:1 897

The date 810 BC for the 1st of Uzziah was reached by both Ussher and Anstey (Ptolemaic date). Amaziah's dates 851-823 BC inclusive leave an interregnum of 12 years. Anstey was of the opinion that this interregnum existed and that Uzziah was only 4 years old at his father's death. For 12 years,

there was a regent ruling until Uzziah was 16. Ussher moved the synchronism 12 years so that no interregnum resulted.

TABLE 2: YEARS FROM JEHU TO THE SIEGE OF SAMARIA

KING OF JUDAH

FIRST YEAR

TEXTREIGN

KING OF ISRAEL FIRSTYEAR

TEXTREIGN

Athaliah 897 6 Jehu 897 28

Joash 891 40 Jehoahaz 869 17

Amaziah 851 29 Jehoash 852 16

Interregnum** 822 - Jeroboam II 836 41

Uzziah (Azariah 810 52 Interregnum** 795 -

Jotham 758 16 Zachariah 772 1

Ahaz* 742 16 Menahem 771 10

Hezekiah 728 29 Pekiah 761 2

- - - Pekah 759 20

- - - Interregnum** 739 -

- - - Hoshea 731 9

Fall of Samaria 723 - Fall of Samaria 723 year 9 of Hoshea

*There is a two regency between Ahaz and Hezekiah **Period with no or unknown ruler

Assyriologists of the 19th century found ancient texts (eponym lists) which could be used to construct another independent chronology in the era of the divided kingdom. Inscriptions and annals also provided synchronisms between the reign of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III and the Israelite king Ahab as well as Shalmaneser V and Hosea. Unfortunately, the biblical and Assyrian chronologies disagreed by over 40 years. Anstey[2], on the basis of his own chronology, which was 7 years longer than Ussher's, insisted that 52 years were missing from the Assyrian records. Yet the seeming completeness of the Assyrian records was hard to deny and scholars like Thiele [17] sought a major revision in the understanding of the data in the biblical texts. His chronology reduced Ussher's dates over 40 years, introducing a series of co-regencies (where there is joint rule by 2 kings) without altering any data. These two approaches Anstey (longer chronologies) and Thiele (shorter chronologies) have many minor variations but they are irreconcilable.

The Assyrian king, Tiglath-Pileser III (T-P), reigned for 18 years (747 -730 BC) before Shalmaneser V. T-P attacked and defeated both Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel and received tribute from Ahaz all of which agrees to the Bible (II Kings 15:29-31, II Kings 16:7,9). But T-P also records receiving tribute from Menahem of Israel and Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah which according to this chronology happened at least 14 years after Menahem's death. Furthermore, the Bible records Menahem as paying tribute to an Assyrian king named Pul (II Kings 15:19; I Chr 5:26). In the shorter chronologies Menahem and Pekah were ruling in different parts of Israel at the

same time for 10 years and then Pekah and Pekahiah 2 years. Thus, Pekah ruled only 8 of his 20 years alone. The Bible texts (II Kings 15:17-16:1), if given their plainest meaning, show that Menahem ruled from the 39th to 49th of Uzziah and died. Pekahiah ruled 2 years, the 50th and 51st of Uzziah and died. Pekah ruled 20 years from the 52nd of Uzziah. Jotham son of Uzziah reign 16 years from the 2nd of Pekah and Ahaz his son began to reign (accession year) in the 17th year of Pekah . Every year and every king from the 39th of Uzziah to the 16th of Jotham is accounted for. By the first principle of a BIC the biblical record should be preferred over a chronological construction based on Assyrian records. Instead of compacting the biblical chronology to fit all these events into the reign of T-P, a reevaluation of the Assyrian records should be made.

The annals of T-P are fragmentary with many campaigns undated [15, pp 282-84]. In particular, the campaign during which he collected tribute from Menahem and Uzziah are not dated but are found before the events of his 9th year. Several possibilities exist. First, the scribes who constructed these annals may have confused the records of two different kings named Tiglath-Pileser. According to Brinkman [5, p 312] the Assyrian king list recorded T-P as the son of Ashur-Nirari V whereas T-P in one of his inscriptions records that he is the son of Adad-Nirari. Second, like Sargon II, T-P may have stolen credit from a previous Assyrian king named Pul. Third, like Sennacherib, he may have conducted the campaign in the reign of the previous king named Pul. However, if these possibilities are given credence then there is a diminishing possibility of keeping the synchronisms between the earlier Assyrian and Israelite kings - unless the king lists and/or Assyrian eponym records are admitted to be lacking.

Ashur-Dan's solar eclipse

There is a significant statement recorded in the 10th year of Ashur-Dan III who reigned supposedly to 772-755 BC. In the text accompanying the eponym year named Pur-Sagale (the Assyrians named each year) is a statement that there was a solar eclipse in the month of Simanu (May/June). Astronomers have calculated that there was a solar eclipse on June 15, 763 BC which was visible in Assyria. This would seem to confirm the Assyrian eponym and king lists. However, the details of time and place are missing. There is not enough information to be absolutely sure about this eclipse. But note that 3 years have been added to this chronology in the Chaldean period so that the 10th of Ashur-Dan III is now 766 BC. There was no solar eclipse visible from Assyria in May/June of that year. At least 25 additional years must be added between T-P and Ashur-Dan III to make his 10th year have a solar eclipse in the late spring of 791 BC. Such a date would require a major adjustment to the accepted biblical chronology to keep the accepted synchronisms between the earlier Israelite kings Ahab, Jehu and Jehoash and Assyrian kings Shalmaneser III and Adad-Nirari III. It is not hard to understand why historians and chronologists want to keep such a valuable independent confirmation of the conventional chronology.

There were two regnal year systems in ancient times. Mesopotamians counted years of rule, that is regnal years, according to the accession year method. This means that the year in which a king died was credited to him as a full year. The following king would not start his first year until after the following New Year. The total chronological years then are the same as the sum of the regnal years. The Egyptians and Phoenicians, on the other hand, used the non-accession year method. This meant that the year in which a king died was also the first year of the following king. The total chronological years is the sum of all the reigns less one year for each change in reign. The Egyptian method was used between the Israelite kings Jeroboam I and Jehu and between the Judean monarchs Jehoram and Athaliah.

Ezekiel's prophecy

A verification of this dating exists in the book of Ezekiel which connects the beginning of the reign of Jeroboam I with the fall of Jerusalem to the Chaldeans. God instructs Ezekiel (Ezekiel 4:5) to lie on his side for 390 days, one day for each year of the sin of Israel, and 40 days for Judah. Since the sins of Israel and Judah are reckoned separately, the reference must be to the era of the divided kingdom. The sins and thus the divided kingdom must have begun at least 390 years before the prophecy. The prophecy is dated to the 5th year of the captivity of Jehoiachin or the 4th year of Zedekiah (Ezekiel 1:1), which according to this chronology is 597 BC. This makes the 1st year of Jeroboam at the latest 986 BC (inclusive reckoning) the same as that tabulated in the Table 3. The following textual values in Table 3A of the synchronisms between the kings of Israel and Judah in the Bible show one method of calculating the end dates. These are summarized in Table 3. Of the shorter chronologies, none conform to the prophecy of Ezekiel.

TABLE 3A - SYNCHRONISMS USED TO CONSTRUCT TABLE 3

STARTDATE

FROM TO YEARS SAME AS I KingsReference

END DATE

897 BC 12th Jehoram 1st 11 18th Jehoshaphat II Kings 3:1 908 BC

908 BC 18th Jehoshaphat

Accession 18 4th Ahab 22:41 926 BC

926 BC 4th Ahab 1st 3 38th Asa 16:29 929 BC

929 BC 38th Asa Accession 38 20th Jeroboam I 15:9 967 BC

967 BC 20th Jeroboam I1st 19 1st Rehoboam - 986 BC

 

TABLE 3: YEARS FROM KING SOLOMON TO JEHU

KING OF JUDAH

FIRST YEAR

TEXTREIGN

KING OF ISRAEL

FIRSTYEAR

TEXTREIGN*

Solomon 1026 40 Solomon 1026 40

Rehoboam 986 17 Jeroboam I 986 22 (21)

Abijah 969 3 Nadab 965 2 (1)

Asa 966 41 Baasha 964 24 (23)

Jehoshaphat 925 25 Elah 941 2 (1)

Jehoram 1st time 909 co-rex Omri 940 12 (11)

Jehoram 2nd time 904 8 Ahab 929 22 (21)

Jehoshaphat dies 901 - Ahaziah(corex) 909 2 (0)

Ahaziah yr 1 897 1(0) Jehoram 908 12 (11)

Athaliah yr 1 897 - Jehu 897 -

*numbers in brackets are the chronological years for the Egyptian method.

Judges

A summation of the reigns of the judges and enemy oppressions reveal that there is a major discrepancy with I Kings 6:1 which states that the temple construction began in the 480th year since the exodus. Mauro [11, p41] states that no other era produces "a greater lack of unanimity among chronologists of repute." Many have searched in vain for a way to compress the years in Judges to fit the total. Each is forced to amend some reigns. The favorite is to amend the years of Ehud who is the only Israelite to have ruled 80 years. Ussher changed this number to 20 years which does not qualify as a BIC. Others have reduced it to 18 and even 8 years. Another approach makes the oppression by the Ammonites and Philistines coincide. This is insufficient by itself and other amendments are also necessary. All amend at least one text to save amending the other. No chronological compression of the period of the judges has ever been generally accepted. Neither can Paul's statement be reconciled to the 480 years. In Acts 13:20 he says that the Israelites wandered 40 years in the wilderness, conquered the seven tribes of Canaan and were ruled by judges for 450 years until Samuel. If, to these 450 years, we add 40 for the wandering in the wilderness, about 22 years of Saul after Samuel's death, 40 years of David and 3 years of Solomon we arrive at a total of 555 years rather than 480. To reconcile Paul to the text in I Kings it was proposed by some, including Anstey, that the 480 years were not chronological but were the result of summing the years in which there was an Israelite judge. That is, the 480 years represent the number of judgeship years while years of foreign oppression or years without judges were omitted from the total.

We know Moses spent forty years in the desert but from Joshua's conquest to the first oppression is stated only as a generation, after which the Israelites did what was right in their own eyes and God delivered them into the hands of Cushan-rishthaim. Fortunately, Josephus records these numbers; Joshua ruled for 25 years after which there was an interregnum of 18 years. The Bible also lacks an explicit connection between Samson and Samuel. The most logical point to connect the two is the battle of Mizpah where Samuel defeated and finally freed the Israelites from the forty-year oppression by the Philistines. This puts Samuel directly after Samson. Josephus also states there were 12 years until the crowning of Saul. Anstey's total of 594 years for Judges is too high due to his inclusion of 40 years for Eli. In Table 4, I propose 568 years (569 inclusively) from the exodus until the construction of the temple.

TABLE 4: THE YEARS OF THE JUDGES - 1023 BC to 1591 BC

NAME OF JUDGE JUDGE YEARS

NON-JUDGEYEARS

SUMYEARS

DATE

Moses 40 0 40 1591

Joshua 25 0 65 1551

Interregnum 0 18 83 1526

Cushan-rishthaim 0 8 911508

Othniel 40 0 131 1500

Eglon/Moabite 0 18 149 1460

Ehud 80 0 229 1442

Jabin/Canaanite 0 20 249 1362

Deborah/Barak 40 0 289 1342

Midianites 0 7 296 1335

Gideon 40 0 336 1295

Abimelech 3 0 339 1292

Tola 23 0 362 1269

Jair 22 0 384 1247

Ammonites 0 18 402 1229

Jephthah 6 0 408 1223

Izban 7 0 415 1216

Elon 10 0 425 1206

Abdon 8 0 433 1198

Philistine/Samson/Samuel

40 0 473 1158

Samuel 12 0 485 1146

Saul 40 0 525 1106

David 40 0 565 1066

Solomon's Temple 3 0 568 1026

Total* 479 89 - -

*N.B. If the exodus is counted as Year 1, then Solomon's Temple is Year 1+479 = 480

Sabbatical and Jubilee Year in Hezekiah's Reign

Is there any confirmation of the date 1591 BC? Every seventh year in the Jewish calendar was a year of Sabbath rest. From the fall (month of Tishri) to the next fall no crops were planted. The Jews were to live off the extra abundant harvest of the sixth year and that which grew in the seventh year of its own accord. The Jews were to cancel the debts of their fellow Jews from servitude (Deut 15:12). Schurer [16, pp39-46], a famous scholar of Jewish history, concludes that there are several known sabbatical years. One sabbatical year is stated in I Maccabees as occurring in the year 150 of the Seleucid era. Schurer determined this to be 164/63 BC (Tishri to Tishri). Josephus also mentions a sabbatical year when Jerusalem fell to Herod three years after his appointment by the Romans, dated to 40 BC [10, XIV.16.sec 2]. Shurer identifies 38/37 BC as a sabbatical year . While Jerusalem was under siege God promised Hezekiah a harvest so abundant that they need neither sow nor plant any crops for two years (Isa 37:30). This was God's usual blessing for a sabbatical year followed by a year of jubilee (Lev 25:8-11). To fit with the other known sabbatical years, it must be dated to 710 BC, 19th year of Hezekiah, and 709 BC the year of Jubilee. Thus, it was 5

years from Sennacherib's invasion in the 14th year of Hezekiah until the siege of Jerusalem. After 5 years of warfare one can understand his need for a sign from heaven.

Since 1591 BC was the first year of a sabbatical cycle 1585 BC ought to be a 7th or sabbatical year. This in line with previous known dates of sabbatical years. But also the exodus was the first year in the jubilee cycle. The first year of Jubilee would be 1542 BC. It is 833 years before 709 BC, the next known year of jubilee. Since 833 is divisible by 49 it is also in line with the previous dates of jubilee years. Only by adding or subtracting multiples of 49 can this alignment be maintained. Given that Solomon's temple is dated to 1023 and there are at least 480 but not more than 620 years to the Exodus only 1542, 1591 and 1640 BC are possible dates for the exodus.

Archaeology

Archaeologists have divided ancient history into many eras. From the patriarchs to the captivity and Jeremiah the prophet is covered by the eras Middle Bronze(MB) II, Late Bronze(LB), Iron Age (IA) I and Iron Age II. Under the revised scheme the exodus and the Israelites under Joshua invade Canaan in MB II, and not in LB age as is conventionally accepted. The United Kingdom occupies the Late Bronze and the Divided Kingdom the Iron Ages.

TABLE 5: REVISED ARCHAEOLOGICAL AGES

NAME OF ERA ACCEPTED DATES

REVISED DATES

Middle Bronze Age II 1900- 1550 1700-1200

Late Bronze Age 1550-1200 1200-900

Iron Age I 1200-900 900-800

Iron Age II 900-600 800-600

A specific problem area for biblical apologists is the archaeology of Jericho. The book of Joshua claims that the Israelites marched around the town for seven days, watched its walls fall, charged straight into the city and burned it without taking any spoils. After its conquest God cursed it so that nobody would rebuilt its gates. It was not until King Ahab's day that Jericho's gates were rebuilt. Archaeologists, have placed the fall of Jericho and the conquest at the end of the Late Bronze, circa 1300 BC. At this time there is no city at Jericho for Joshua to conquer, no great wall which collapsed and no devastating burning. Furthermore, there is little sign any invasion in the land of Canaan. Although there is no city at the end of the Late Bronze era, there is a city labeled city IV, which meets uniquely the requirements for the biblical Jericho of Joshua's day. According to Wood [19] city IV was burned to the ground. Its upper walls were situated on top of the Early Bronze walls. These walls toppled outward (almost unique in archaeological sites) and the fallen bricks provided the attackers with a convenient ramp to enter the city. In the rubble of city IV, there were found pots and jars containing charred wheat. This is not unusual except for the quantity - six bushels. Normally in a long siege this grain would have been used up or if not would have been carried off as booty by the attackers. Afterwards, the city remained uninhabited until the beginning of the Iron Age era. The problem of identifying city IV with Joshua's time is chronology. Although city IV was initially dated to 1400 BC by Garstang subsequent work by Kenyon re-dated it to the Middle Bronze era or 1550 BC. The traditional conservative dates around 1400 BC and the liberal dates around 1320 BC were judged incompatible. Wood [19] together with Bimson and Livingstone [4] have attempted to redate this city to 1400 BC from its pottery. From this chronology, it would

appear unnecessary. The city of Jericho fell in 1551 BC, the same date used by Kenyon. This implies that the conquest occurred in the Middle Bronze.

The idea that the Israelites inhabited Palestine in the Middle Bronze is not new. Velikovsky in 1952 suggested that the Amalekites who attacked Moses in the desert after the exodus are the same as the Hyksos of Egyptian history who overpowered the Middle kingdom Egypt (dynasty XII). These Hyksos kings ruled for centuries until overthrown by Ahmose I, the first ruler of dynasty XVIII. Archaeologically, the Hyksos and therefore Joshua, belong to the latter part of the Middle Bronze. Courville [6] reexamined reports for some archaeological sites in order to reposition the exodus, and in particular Shechem. Shechem was burned by Gideon's son Abimelech. The residents when overwhelmed took refuge in the temple of Baal Berith. The archaeologists excavating Shechem found a city which had been a major fortification with tower and walls 17 feet thick. It had been burned severely and contained a large temple which had a stronghold within it which had been burned also. It was initially identified with the Shechem of Abimelech. Later, however, it became apparent from the pottery that the temple and city belonged to the Middle Bronze IIC. This was much too early for the time of Abimelech according to standard chronology. A diligent search was made of the later strata for the Israelite temple. A lesser temple was found but it had not been burned. The city showed a steady decline through the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. The temple of Baal Berith was not found. Like Jericho, the archaeological evidence fit well with biblical history but not the chronology.

The hypothesis that the conquest belongs in the Middle Bronze means the archaeological evidences of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages must be reevaluated. If it can be shown that there is a reasonable interpretation for them then the hypothesis remains viable. James [7, pp 163-203] showed that there is a reasonable interpretation. Major characteristics of the Late Bronze era are increased population and wealth; the temples are magnificent, the artwork is fine and the literature rich with deep religious feeling. Since, in the conventional thinking, the Israelites had not yet conquered the land archaeologists attribute these artifacts to the Canaanites, in particular, the treasure of Thutmose III (Late Bronze) which he put on display on a wall of Karnak. The rich Canaanite treasures far surpassed anything that the Israelites would ever make in later years yet there was not one work, basin or utensil dedicated to any of the Canaanite gods. Velikovsky considered these treasures to be stolen from the temple of Solomon. James notes the richness of the Late Bronze artifacts generally and ascribes them to the era of the United Kingdom. He also points out that the study of the plans of Solomon's temple has regularly lead to a comparison with Late Bronze temples both within and without Palestine. If David and Solomon belong to the Late Bronze then these great works of architecture, art and literature are Israelite.

Following the end of the Late Bronze is the Iron Age I. Archaeological remains are sparse and poor showing little art or wealth. Conventionally, Solomon is identified with the Iron Age. Archaeologists identify the Iron Age gates at Hazor, Megiddo and Lachish with Solomon since he built fortifications in these areas However, these type of gates also appeared in Ashdod of Philistia where Solomon is not known to have built. Also, the description of the magnificence of Solomon's buildings in the Bible was not matched by the temple remains in the Iron Age. The poverty of Iron Age I would fit well with the era of Jehu and his sons when they were under oppression from the Syrians. Iron Age II follows in which there is considerable improvement is material goods and military fortifications. After the death of the Syrian King Hazael, King Jeroboam II and King Uzziah led a revival of Israelite power. Uzziah rebuilt many of the old fortifications but not to the greatness of Solomon. He recaptured Edom, Philistia and other areas. The fortifications attributed to Solomon in Iron II are more appropriately attributed to Uzziah, particularly those at Ashdod. Thus, the placing of the conquest in the Middle Bronze era leads to reasonable explanations for the remains of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages and even resolves some longstanding difficulties.

Discussion

Table 6 is a summary of important dates in the proposed chronology from the crucifixion to the exodus.There is general acceptance of 538 BC as the 1st of Cyrus. Jeremiah's 70 years (52+7+11 Table 6) put the 4th of Jehoiakim at 608 BC. An 11 year reign for him puts the 4th of Zedekiah at 597 BC. Ezekiel's 390 years inclusive reckoning (11+115+263 in Table 6) put the beginning of the divided kingdom at or near 986 BC. A 40 year reign for Solomon puts his 4th year and the building of the temple at or near 1023 BC. Adding 480 years of judges to 89 years of oppression (569 inclusively) puts the exodus at or near 1591 BC.

TABLE 6: CHRONOLOGY OF KEY EVENTS: 30 AD to 1591 BC

EVENTOR RULER

DATED

DATE YEARS IN INTERVAL

DIFFERENCE

FROMGAD*

AUTHORITIESFOR DATING

INTERVAL

Crucifixion30 AD

- - Conventional

Ezra's Decree458 BC

4870 Bible & Ptolemy's

Canon

End of Exile1st of Cyrus

53880

0 Persian RecordsPtolemy's Canon

Fall of Jerusalem590

523 Bible

Ezekiel's prophecy597

73 Bible

Battle of Carchemish4th of Jehoiakim 608

113 Bible

Fall of Samaria723

1151 Bible

Divided Kingdom986

26356 Bible

Temple1023

3756 Bible

Exodus1591

568144 Bible & Josephus

*Generally Accepted Dates

The initial differences between this and the generally accepted chronology are small. Only 3 years difference at the time of Shalmaneser V, Hezekiah and Hoshea. This, however, is very important

since it renders the astronomical confirmation of the standard chronology void. During the divided kingdom the difference increases by 53. This chronology uses a "longer" chronology because the shorter ones produced contradictions and failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the prophecy of Ezekiel. From the temple to the Exodus adds another 89 years. This resulted from realizing that no chronology requiring 480 years as in Ussher's could do so without altering some individual years of judges. Thus, another interpretation was needed. Although Anstey provided such an interpretation his construction was not in accord with the years provided by Josephus. Using Josephus resulted in a date for the Exodus of 1591 BC which aligned with previously known Sabbatical and Jubilee years.

This chronology has put great reliance not just on the historical data of the Bible but also the texts of the prophets. This is not standard procedure for scholars. The use of prophetic texts may not be generally acceptable yet they are just as inspired and "inerrant " as the rest of Bible. The Jews would not have allowed the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel to be set aside as holy if even one of their prophecies had failed.

Aardsma claimed [1, p1] that the "historicity of the Old Testament is currently facing a challenge of unprecedented severity". He thinks that secular archaeologists may provide as serious an intellectual challenge to the faithful as Darwinism. Therefore, it is important to use the lessons we have learned from the challenge of Darwinism. The hidden strength of creationists lay in their humility to put their complete trust in God's Word, ahead of their own professional training, knowledge and understanding, and their courage to withstand the mocking and jeering of the press and peers. They have built their positions of faith and practice on the foundation of inerrancy. Biblical scholars would do well to follow them when the facing the new challenges to the historicity of the Old Testament.

CONCLUSION

The proposed date for the Exodus, 1591 BC, is based on BIC rules. It uses all the actual textual data and its prophecies and also its sabbatical years and jubilees. With the inclusion of the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel in the construction, the Battle of Carchemish must be 608 or 607 BC and the beginning of the divided kingdom before 980 BC which puts the construction of Solomon's temple prior to 1015 BC. The exodus must be at least 480 years (1495 BC) before that. From the known years of jubilee the latest date for the exodus is 1542 BC. This negates both the old conservative and old liberal dates for the exodus as well as all the accompanying guesses as to its pharaoh and dynasty. The new BIC chronology call for a major revision in the interpretation of biblical and Palestinian archaeology. The conquest of Canaan must precede the end of the Late Bronze Age and likely should be placed in the middle of the Middle Bronze II. The archaeology proposed by James and aided by Wood, Bimson and Livingstone would suit the requirements well. This places David and Solomon in the rich Late Bronze Age; Jehu and Joash in the impoverished Iron Age I where they suffered under the Syrians; and Uzziah and Jeroboam II at the beginning of the Iron Age II when Israelite power increased. Thus, BIC rules not only conform to the standards of inerrancy but also help resolve several difficulties in the reconciliation of biblical chronology and archaeology.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I would like to thank Ian Taylor, who patiently listened to the progress of my research. I would like to express my appreciation to Judy Young in providing valuable knowledge of the historical evidences of Assyrian and Egyptian sources. Her knowledge was very impressive and the spirit of her criticism always fair. I must thank Tom Goss for his contribution in managing the research to the point of fruition. Although the first steps in this study were initiated by curiosity and

encouraged by several people it was the faithfulness of the Lord to answer many prayers which ultimately led to this final work.

REFERENCES

[1] Aardsma, G., "A new approach to the chronology of Biblical History from Abraham to Samuel", 1993, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego.

[2] Anstey, M., "The romance of biblical chronology" , 1913, Marshal Bros., London.

[3] Archer, G., "The encyclopedia of biblical difficulties" , 1982, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.

[4] Bimson, J.J. and Livingstone, D.P. , Redating the exodus ," Biblical Archaeological Review", Sept/Oct 1987 pp. 40-53, p. 66

[5] Brinkman, J.A. Comments on the Nassouhi king list and the Assyrian king list Tradition, "Orientalia,"Vol 42, p306-19

[6] Courville, Donovan, "The Exodus and its problems", 1971, Challenge Books, Loma Linda

[7] James, Peter, "Centuries of darkness", 1991, Rutgers U. P., New Brunswick, N.J.

[8] Jamieson, R., Fausset, A.M.&Brown, D. , "Commentary: practical and expository on the whole Bible", 1974 (edition)

[9] Josephus, Against Apion, "Josephus: Complete works", (translated Whiston), 1960, Kregel Pub.

Grand Rapids, MI.

[10] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, "Josephus: Complete works", (translated Whiston), 1960, Kregel Pub. Grand Rapids, MI.

[11] Mauro, Phillip, "The wonders of biblical chronology", 1987, Grace Abounding Ministries, Sterling, VA.

[12] Newton, R., 1977, "The crime of Claudius Ptolemy,"John Hopkins U.P. Baltimore.

[13] Parker, R.A. & W.H. Dubberstein, "Babylonian Chronology 626 BC - AD 75", 1956, Brown University Series; Brown University Press.

[14] Payne, J.B., "Encyclopedia of biblical prophecy", 1973, Harper&Row, New York.

[15] Pritchard, R., 1969, "Ancient near eastern texts relating to the Old Testament", Princeton U.P. Princeton, N.J.

[16] Schurer, E., "A History of the Jewish people in the time of Christ", 1924, Clark, Edinburgh.

[17] Thiele, E.R. , "The mysterious numbers of the Hebrew kings", 1965, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.

[18] Velikovsky, I., "Rameses II and his times", 1978, Doubleday & Co, Garden City, N.Y.

[19] Woods, B., Did the Israelites conquer Jericho?, "Biblical Archaeological Review", Vol 16, Mar/Apr 1990, pp 44-57.

Paper presented at the International Conference on Creation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. © 1998 along with the Conference's Proceedings by the Creation Science Fellowship, Inc. (CSF). Proceedings are available by writing to CSF, P.O. Box 99303, Pittsburgh, PA 15233-4303, or by

emailing (csf@trfn.clpgh.org). Web Site: (http://www.icc98.org/about.htm) Reprinted by Permission. August 19, 1998.

 

THE SOJOURN OF ABRAHAM TO THE EXODUS

Alan Montgomery

 

INTRODUCTION

We will cover in this part the chronology the entrance of Abraham into the land of Canaan to the end of Judges and then to the building of the Temple of Solomon. Some would argue that the Bible is not intended for chronology and that we lose sight of its beauty and meaning if we allow it to be used that way. The Bible is from God and needs to be appreciated on all levels and not just the ones that make us feel comfortable or popular. If the Bible is the truth, its chronology should be useful to historians even if they do not believe in God.

Summary of Early Major Events in History

 Event  Date

 Creation  5519 BC

 Noah's flood  3268 BC

 Abram's entrance into Canaan   2021 BC

 Exodus  1591 BC

 Joshua' conquest of Jericho  1551 BC

 Saul made king  1106 BC

 Solomon's Temple begun  1023 BC

  Fall Of Omrides   897 BC

 Fall Of Samaria  723 BC

 Fall Of Jerusalem  590 BC

 End of exile   538 BC

 Rebuilding the temple  520 BC

  Decree of Ezra  458 BC

 

The entrance of Abram into Canaan initiated a new era in God's purpose for the human race. Up to this time, the knowledge of God was culturally transmitted in each nation. Yet in each nation, there had arisen both priests and kings who had abandoned the worship of the true God to worship idols of the sun, moon and the stars. There was no longer any nation whose culture was a safe vehicle for the transmission of the knowledge of God. God chose Abram to journey to a new land to establish a new culture, which would respect His promises and commandments for posterity.

Abram received the promise that God would give the land of Canaan to his descendants, that God would make him the father of many nations and kings and that God would bless the nations of the world through his offspring. Abram also received a promise of an heir, an heir not just to his estate, but to the promises that God had made to Abram. At first, Sarah and Abraham thought that Ishmael, son of Hagar and Abraham's legitimate heir under the law, was God's answer to their hopes. However, the promise was by faith and the heir also had to come by faith - not by human effort. God's promise through Abraham was accomplished in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; so much so that Paul refers to believers as the children of Abraham. Jesus, on the other hand, told the Sadducees and the Pharisees that had Abraham been their father they would have received Him.

There are two views on the chronology of this period: one, that the duration of Israel's stay in Egypt was 430 years and the other that it was 215 years. As mentioned before by Kitchen, slave prices in Moses date about 1500 BC were about 30 shekels. If Joseph entered Egypt 430 years before the exodus, it would put him at 1900 BC. or the beginning of the first Babylonian dynasty. It would put Abraham at 2100 BC., before the fall of the last Sumerian dynasties. The historical connections to the first Babylonian dynasty would require Egyptian dates be put back another hundred years. If Joseph were 215 years before Moses it would place him in the 18th century BC. The historical fit with the Egyptian Middle Kingdom would require a lowering of dates about 100 years. Abraham would appear in the 20th century BC., i.e., in the First Intermediate Period. This is a good fit with or without a 100-year lowering.

The period of the sojourn is given in Exodus 12:40,41. "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years. And it came to pass at the end of the 430 years, even to the very day, that the hosts of the Lord went out from Egypt." The question is: Does the 430 years refer to their residence in Egypt only or does it include the patriarchal stay in Canaan? Taylor (Taylor, 1992) provides an excellent discussion of the Hebrew text and its ambiguity. In particular, Taylor points out time phrases in Hebrew which stand alone without any prepositions usually refer to the entire period in the sentence or paragraph. His view is that the 430 years belong to the whole sentence rather than the clause ãwho dwelt in Egyptä.

The Septuagint and Samaritan texts state that the 430 years were spent in Canaan and in Egypt. Josephus says more explicitly that the sojourn was 215 years in Canaan and 215 years in Egypt. Thus all three interpret the sojourn as beginning with Abraham. In Galatians 3:17 Paul tells us that "The covenant which was confirmed before by God in Christ, the law, which came 430 years later, could not annul." This is the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12 upon his departure from Harran to the land of Canaan. This covenant promises to make of Abraham a great nation and to bless the gentiles through Abraham's seed (i.e. Christ). The giving of the law is a reference to Moses receiving the ten commandments on Mt. Sinai. If the sojourn is 430 years, then the above interpretation makes sense. If the stay in Egypt was 430 years Paul must have referred to some other covenant; some suggest the confirmation of the promise to Jacob as he entered Egypt. The context of Paul's argument is the covenant promise of the blessing to gentiles like the Galatians. The focus is on Abraham, his faith and God's promise to him. Jacob is not mentioned. This leads me to conclude that Paul's 430 years apply to the whole sojourn and not just the stay in Egypt.

The sojourn is mentioned also in Genesis 15:13 "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own and will be enslaved and will be mistreated 400 years." Is this the time of enslavement or a rounding of the years in sojourn? If this sentence were translated so that "for 400 years" appeared before "your descendants" then the implication in English would be that the 400 years was the sum of the three periods. Here again, Taylor prefers the view that the 400 years is the sum of the periods. A simple reading of Exodus suggests the oppression began shortly before Moses birth. This would make the period of enslavement from the Moses birth to the exodus 80 years. Joseph began to rule about age 30 as Pharaoh's vizier. About age 39, Joseph received Jacob into Egypt. Joseph died at age 110 , having held office for 71 more years. Adding to this another 50 years until a pharaoh who knew not Joseph could ascend the throne results in a total of about 120 years. Accordingly, the mistreatment and slavery can last no longer than 310 years.

God had promised that He would end the suffering of the Israelites in the 4th generation. Moses was of the fourth generation and became God's deliverer. If the Israelites were to spend 430 years in the land of Egypt, is it possible to account for God's promise to deliver Israel in the fourth generation? The first generation to enter Egypt was Joseph. His brother Levi had a son named Kohath who lived to be 133 years old. His name appears in the list of Jacob's descendants who arrived in Egypt with him. He had a son named Amram who lived to be 137 years old. Even if we were to assume that: Kohath was a newborn at Jacob's arrival, Amram was born to Kohath at 133 and Moses born to Amram at 137, there could elapse no more than (133+137+80) = 350 years before the Exodus. To accommodate a 430 stay in Egypt, one must add a generation or suppose that Kohath was born at least 80 years after Jacob's entrance into Egypt.

Interestingly, the Moses line is the only one whose ages are mentioned in the text. All others are recorded without ages or any other chronological information. With the exception of Cainan, one cannot find missing generations in the Hebrew records when ages are provided. In Moses' day not all Israelites were fourth generation descendants from Joseph or his brothers. The genealogy of

Joshua is given in I Chronicles 7 where Joshua is 12 generations from Joseph yet we know that he lived at the same time as Moses.

TABLE 3: CHRONOLOGY OF SOJOURN

2021 to 1591 BC

  EVENT CHRONOLOGY -

YEARS BC YEARS AFTER

CANAAN

 Abram leaves Harran  2021  0

 Isaac birth  1997  24

 Abraham's death  1921  100

 Birth of Jacob & Esau  1916  105

 Jacob enters Egypt  1806  215

 Joseph's death  1735  286

 Moses birth  1671  350

 Exodus  1591  430

Note: My investigation lead me to believe that the sojourn in Egypt was only 215 years. The 400 years oppression is little understood. The Hebrew often takes a series of events and adds the total of the years at the end of the sentence. The translators of many of these chronological statements often are not able to assign the right years to the right events. The 430 years sojourn includes both the time in Canaan and Egypt and is correct to the year. The promise is reiterated 25 years later and the 400 years is a rounded amount. This is confirmed by the Septuagint and Samaritan versions who recognized the ambivalence in the Hebrew and made sure in their versions to leave no ambiguity.

I would also ask you to remember that the deliverer would come in the 4th generation. As an actuary I as constantly amazed how often people actually believe in the concept of a population generation. It really does not exist. Joshua was the 12th generation from Jacob while at the same time Moses was the 4th. Generations is a concept that belongs to families and ancestors not populations.

I deal with the rate of population growth below. Israelites were not monogamous at that time. Offspring of Egyptian wives were counted as Israelites. The men conceived babies into their later years by remarriage, they practiced no birth control and they had no natural enemies, droughts, famines or pestilence while they were in Egypt. This suggests a high rate of population growth.

Could the Israelite population grow to 603,550 men of military age(20 years old) in only 215 years? The Israelites were a pastoral and agricultural society and valued children greatly. Children were their pride and joy. Economically, they were old age security. The Israelite males at that time , like Abraham, frequently remarried at very old ages and/or married their wives' handmaidens. Furthermore, God had not forbidden intermarriage with the Egyptians as he had the Canaanites. In a rich area like Goshen, free from plagues and war, one would expect a high rate of population growth. In Africa today, some nations are growing at 5% per year. At a rate of 5% per year the Israelite population would double every 14 years. This represents 15 doublings in 210 years or a 32,000 fold increase. Since the Israelites and their wives were initially 70 people, the final population would be over 2,240,000. This could easily provide 600,000 men of military age. The 5% rate used over 210 years does not imply a uniformly increasing population.

The growth of the Israelites to two million people in 210 years is not unreasonable for that time, culture and environment. On the other hand, a 430-year sojourn in Egypt would require an average 2.5% rate of population growth. This is similar to the average population increase in industrialized nations in the post World War II era. These societies are monogamous, use birth control and abortion, socially restrict child bearing years to ages 18 to 40 and generally disdain more than three children in a family. A population growth rate as low as 2.5% would be unlikely among the Israelites.

August 19, 2002

 

 

A CHRONOLOGICAL MODEL FOR THE BIBLE

Part 1: THE EXODUS, JOSHUA AND JUDGES 

Alan Montgomery Email: alamontgomery@rogers.com

Kanata, ONCanada, K2L 2L6

 

INTRODUCTION

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.

LIBYAN CHRONOLOGY

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.

Table 1: CHRONOLOGY OF LIBYAN PHARAOHS

 PHARAOHDYNASTY

22

 MANETHO(Africanus)

 YEARS(Kitchen)

 DATES(Kitchen)

 YEARS(Proposed)

 DATES(Proposed)

 Shoshenq I  21  21  945-925  21  872-852

 Osorkon I  16  35  924-890  15  851-837

 Takelot I  3 kings 25 yearsTotal

 15  889-875  1  836-836

 Osorkon II  24  874-851  24*  835-812

 Takelot II  13  25  850-826  25*  811-787

 Shoshenq III   Omitted  52  825-774  52*  825-774

 Pimay  Last 3 kingsTotal42 years.

 6  773-768  6  773-768

 Shoshenq V  37  767-731  37  767-731

 Osorkon IV  3  730-728  0  730

 Total  116  218    181*  

* These reigns overlap by 39 years. Net total = 181 - 39 =142

Discussion

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.

TABLE 2: REVISED EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY (REC) 18th DYNASTY

 PHARAOH OF

18TH DYNASTY

 YEARS

(ROHL)

 DATES

(ROHL)

 CO-REX

(ROHL)

 YEARS(GARDINER

)

 DATES(GARDINER

)

 YEARS (GRIMAL

)

 DATES(GRIMAL

)

 Ahmoses I  241068 - 1045

   25  1092-1067  19 1097-1079

Amenhotep I  201044 - 1025

   22  1067-1044  27 1078-1050

 Thutmose I  111024 - 1014

   4  1045-1040  13 1051-1039

 Thutmose II  11013 -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.

TABLE 3: REVISED EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY

 ERA  DYNASTY  G.A.D.*  REVISED  ISRAELITES

 Middle Kingdom

 12th  1991-1778  1800-1587  Joseph

 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

*G.A.D. - Generally Accepted Dates

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.

REFERENCES

Aardsma, G. 1993. A New approach to the chronology of biblical history from Abraham to Samuel. ICR. San DiegoBartlett, J. 1982. Jericho. Lutterworth Press. Guildford, Surrey, p96Bienkowski, P. 1990. Jericho was destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age not the Late Bronze age. Biblical Archaeological Review. Sept/Oct 1990Bietak, M. 1988. Contra Bimson. Biblical Archaeological Review , July/Aug 1988, p.54Bimson, J.J. and Livingstone, D.P. 1987. Redating the Exodus. Biblical Archaeological Review, Sept/Oct 1987 pp. 40-53,66Bimson, 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, NJJosephus. 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.100Kitchen, 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. 395-406Moran, W. 1992. The el-Amarna letters. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore.Niebuhr, H. 1761. Biblical Research. Vol. 1, pp 113,114Petrie, 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, NJRohl, D. 1995. Pharaohs and kings: a biblical quest. Crown Publishers. NYVan Seters, J. 1966. The Hyksos. Yale University Press. New Haven, CTVelikovsky, I. 1952. Ages in chaos. Doubleday & Co. Garden City, NYVelikovsky, I. 1977. Peoples of the sea. Doubleday & Co. Garden City, NYVelikovsky, I. 1978. Ramses II and his times. Doubleday & Co, Garden City, NYWilson, J. A. 1969a. The Asiatic campaigning of Amenhotep II. ANET (3rd Ed.) p. 245. Ed. J. Pritchard. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJWilson, 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 PressWood, B. 1990. Did the Israelites conquer Jericho? Biblical Archaeological Review. Vol. 16, Mar/Apr 1990, pp. 44-57.

April 5, 2001. Updated March 30, 2003. May 8, 2003.

 

 

The Stratigraphy of the 19th Dynasty in Asia Minor

 

Alan Montgomery Email: alamontgomery@rogers.com

 

Velikovsky claimed the 19th and 26th Dynasties were the same and belong to the 7th and 6th centuries. To support his claim he compared the campaigns of Ramses II from Egyptian texts and

Necho II from the Greek and Hebrew texts and demonstrated that they both fought in the same places, in the same order, the same time apart with the same result [Velikovsky, 1978, p. 59]. Furthermore, Petrie found a temple of Rameses II at Tahpanhes, a 26th Dynasty site. Psammetichus (663 - 610 GAD) of the 26th Dynasty had granted Tahpanhes to his Greek and Carian mercenaries. It existed during the 26th Dynasty until the time of Amasis (569 -525). He found no artifacts of dynasties 20 to 25 (7th and the 13th century). Excavators at Lachish found a temple with 19th Dynasty artifacts also contained Israelite material of the 7th century. The stratum of the time Nebuchadnezzar, circa 590, contained the scarabs of Ramses II circa 1290. Coincidentally, the city of Lachish suffered similar major conflagrations during both Rameses' and Nebuchadnezzar's reign [Velikovsky, 1978, p. 44 - 49]. At Byblos, the tomb of Ahiram presented yet a third problem. The king was buried in a coffin made by his son. His son's inscription was in Phoenician script of the 8th or 7th century as was the imported Cypriot pottery but the broken Egyptian vases and the coffin in the tomb were from the time of Ramses II [Velikovsky, 1978].

These odd 600-year connections originated in Anatolia. In the 19th century, archaeologists found Hittite sculpture in Boghazkoi. Art historian, Puchstein, concluded that the art of Boghazkoi in the time of the Hittite empire was influenced by Late Assyrian conceptions, which had not penetrated Cappadocia until the 7th century [Puchstein, 1890. p. 13]. Then, in the archives of Hattusilas III, a Hittite copy of a treaty with Rameses II was found in 1906. The date of imperial Boghazkoi was raised by 600 years to match the historical synchronism. A 600-year gap was left, however, between the 13th century Hittite empire and the Neo-Babylonian/Persian period. Despite this and the artistic evidence, Egyptian chronology was not doubted. This situation paralleled the one Petrie had created by discovering Mycenaean pottery in Egypt. Petrie's finds had placed the Mycenaean period in the 18th Dynasty, dated from the 16th to 14th centuries, 500 years earlier than the Greek archaeologists allowed. James documented unacceptably large gaps in the Mediterranean, Syrian, Palestinian, and Anatolian strata of 250 - 500 years. He concluded they were caused by poor Egyptian chronology. What would be the result if James's method were applied to the problems of the 19th Dynasty? If the 600-year gap at Boghazkoi is prevalent at other 19th Dynasty sites then it is Egyptian chronology that is flawed.

Seti I and Ramses II both mentioned the capture of Qatna in their wars against the Hittites. After they withdrew from Syria about 1200, the site lay vacant for over half a millennium until it experienced a brief revival in the first half of the sixth century, " [Pfeiffer, 1966. p. 469]. Ugarit was a port city on the Syrian coast opposite Cyprus and was under the rule of Egypt in the Middle Kingdom as well as the New Kingdom. Curtis states its post-19th Dynasty obscurity in these words, "Although the history of Ugarit really comes to an end in the twelfth century." In the seventh and sixth centuries the highest point in the Tell was inhabited, as is shown by the remains of buildings and a small cemetery of sarcophagi made of large stone slabs, which contain iron spears, bronze brooches and alabaster flasks [Curtis, 1985, p. 48]. There were no significant artifacts in between.

Byblos was Egypt,s primary client state in Asia. Montet, in 1921, discovered the tomb of King Ahiram (see above). Afterward, Dunand found many steles that commemorated Ramses's II victories in Syria. His assistant, Jedijian, would write this observation, "The results of excavations at Byblos have shown a curious fact which has been a source of discussion among scholars. In the excavated area at Byblos there is a complete absence of stratified levels of the Iron Age, that is the period of 1200-600 BC [Jedijian, 1986, p. 57]." During this period, Byblos was supposedly a thriving commercial centre. Alalakh fell into the hands of the Hittites during the reign of Suppiluliumas 1380 - 1340 (GAD). During the twelfth century the Hittite Empire fell. Smith in describing the art at Alalakh (twelfth century) said "Still more interesting are the sculptures belonging to the palace of this period. The lions belong to the earliest stage of the type that lasted in Syria for six centuries and closely resemble those, which guard the tomb of Ahiram of Byblos

[Smith, S. 1946. p. 46]. Is the six centuries of unchanging sculpture an anomaly of Alalakh or is the date of Ramses II 600 years in error?

In Anatolia lies Gordion, the ancient capital of Phrygia, home of the legendary of Midas. The earliest Phrygian deposits can be dated by imported Greek pottery to the late 9th and early 8th century. Gordion was invaded and sacked by the Cimmerians during the 7th century and was conquered by Cyrus the Persian in the 6th century. Excavation under an American team headed by Young found a stratum above the Phrygian level and below the Persian. Such a stratum could only be dated between 680 and 550. The ceramic sherds at this level were from the final stage of the Hittite empire- the time of Hattusilas III. Thus, were it not for the synchronism to Ramses II of the 13th century, the final stage of the Hittite empire would be dated to the 7th century.

Having looked generally at the Ramesside levels in Asia and found evidence from stratigraphy that Ramses II was a 7th century pharaoh, we need to examine a specific case in more detail. At Beth Shan more Egyptian material was found than any other Israelite location [Mazar, 1990, p. 282]. Its location at the junction of the Jezreel Valley and the Jordan River made it a strategic military post. In the 18th, 19th and 20th Dynasties the Egyptians kept garrisons of troops and mercenaries there. Associated with the Seti/Ramses II levels were anthropoid clay coffins that Rowe identified these as belonging to their Aegean and Anatolian (Sherdenen) mercenaries that were a "major part of the garrison left at Beth-Shan [Rowe, 1930, p. 26]." The anthropoid coffins are also found in Egypt in sites associated with the both the 19th and 26th Dynasties. Psammetichus of the 26th Dynasty also invaded Palestine with Aegean and Anatolian mercenaries in the 7th century [Herodotus, The Histories (Trans. Aubrey de Selincourt) Penguin Books, Harmondsworth. p. 191]. Psammetichus encountered Scythian invaders at Beth Shan who settled and remained throughout the Persian and Hellenistic eras. The city became known as Scythopolis.

Rowe, the excavator of Beth Shan, designated the upper Strata IX to V to the 18th, 19th and the early 20th Dynasty. Levels IX, VIII, and VII are ascribed to the 18th Dynasty. Levels VI and V are ascribed to the 19th and early 20th Dynasties. The succeeding Stratum IV was ascribed to the period of the Late 20th Dynasty, Judges and Philistines, Israelite kings, Assyrians, Psammetichus and the Scythians as well as the Neo-Babylonians and the early years of the Persians. Whereas 5 strata are assigned to just over 300 years, the one and only Israelite stratum was assigned over 700 years. Furthermore, the thickness of Stratum IV is eight times thinner than the combined Strata V and VI, circa 150 years. This is unacceptable. Indeed, Mazar reports that Level VII belongs to the 19th Dynasty and Level VI to the 20th Dynasty. This leaves two levels V and IV for the Israelite levels. Though he cites Rowe as a reference, he gives no explanation of the discrepancy. Although it is suggested that the Philistines followed the 20th Dynasty, Rowe reports no Philistine pottery at this level. Furthermore, no artifacts identified as Israelite, Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian is reported either. Only a statue of Ramses III is found here together with Scythian artifacts. If Seti I and Ramses II (1300 - 1200) directly overlie the Scythians in Neo-Babylonian and Persian times (600 - 300), there remains a 600-year gap, just like the Syrian sites.

In Anatolia and Syria, deposits dated or synchronized to the 19th Dynasty coexist with and/or are superimposed by deposits of the 7th and 6th century. Furthermore, evidence of the invasions of Psammetichus and Necho II are missing from all these sites. At Beth Shean excavations have also clearly revealed another 600-year gap, even though there is a great deal of identifiable Egyptian material. It is hopeless to carry on special pleading any longer to avoid the obvious. There is no 600-year gap. The 19th Dynasty existed in the 7th not the 13th century. The 19th and 26th Dynasties are the same as Velikovsky has claimed [Velikovsky, 1978].

Other papers by by Alan Montgomery:

A CHRONOLOGICAL MODEL FOR THE BIBLE: Part 1. THE EXODUS, JOSHUA AND JUDGES TOWARDS A BIBLICALLY INERRANT CHRONOLOGY Bibliography:

Curtis, A. 1985. Cities of the biblical world: Ugarit. Eerdmans. Grand Rapids. p. 48

Herodotus. The Histories (Trans. Aubrey de Selincourt). Penguin Books. Harmondsworth. p. 191

Jedijian, N. 1986. Byblos through the ages. Beirut. Dar el-Machreq. P.57

Mazar, A. 1990. Archeology of the land of the Bible: 10,000 - 586 BC. Doubleday, New York.

Puchstein, O. 1890. Pseudohethitsche Kunst, Berlin. p. 13

Pfeiffer, C. 1966. The biblical world: A dictionary of biblical archaeology. Baker Books. Grand Rapids. p. 469

Rowe, A. 1930. Topography and Historyy of Beth-Shean. University Press. Philadelphia. p. 26

Smith, S. 1946. Alalakh and chronology. Luzac and Company. London. p. 46

Velikovsky, I. 1978. Ramses and his times. Doubleday. Garden City, N.Y.

April 21, 2001. Updated March 30, 2003.

A DETERMINATION AND ANALYSIS OF APPROPRIATE VALUES OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT TO TEST THE SETTERFIELD HYPOTHESIS

Alan Montgomery218 Mccurdy DR.

Kanata, ON K2L 2L6Canada

ABSTRACT The velocity of light data from four different sources are tabulated and edited to provide data sensitive enough to distinguish between a decrease in c of the size claim by Setterfield and Norman and constancy. The analysis of these values yields a time dependent weighted regression model with significant fit and statistically significant trend. Data analyzed by time subintervals, distribution, accuracy and precision yielded results in support of the regression model. Attempts to determine an experimental or experimenter bias to account for this trend were unsuccessful. Some examples of physical evidence which might support Setterfield's hypothesis are discussed.

KEYWORDS: Velocity of light, Regression Model, Sensitivity, Young earth model.

INTRODUCTION

In 1987 Setterfield published his monograph Atomic Constants, Light and Time[19] which raised again the question of the constancy of c. Since then there have been no less than 17 articles in the Creation Research Society Quarterly and 12 articles in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal debating this issue. Authors have used various statistical techniques including run tests, regression lines, weighted regression lines and distribution tests. One important claim made by Setterfield is that the decreasing c hypothesis explains how the transit time of light from galaxies billions of light years away takes only thousands of years. Since it would provide an alternative to well accepted scientific arguments against the credibility of biblical history and chronologies this hypothesis should be welcome among young-earth creationists. However, this has not been the case. Since this hypothesis is potentially very significant to creationist astronomy and physics, it is important to develop data and tests which are unambiguous. This paper defines a data set of c values appropriate to this purpose and analyzes this data not only for trends but also for non-physical explanations of the trends in the data.

One of the primary motivations for this analysis of the data on the velocity of light stems from a dissatisfaction with the techniques and data used in previous analyses, including my own [16]. Most analyses have used 162 or 163 data from Setterfield's tables as their basic data. If these had provided unambiguous results the matter would be settled. However, some of Setterfield's data is either non-experimental (Encyclopedia Britannica 1771), duplicate (Cornu 1874) or regarded as unreliable (Young/Forbes 1881). This gives undue weight to some experiments and undermines the credibility of the results. Previous studies have also ignored the question of the sensitivity of the data and methods i.e., the ability of the data to detect a change of the size suggested by Setterfield. Thus, some data, which lack precise or accuracy, render the data collectively ambiguous. This study incorporates the principle of one datum to each experiment and the use of data only if it is sufficiently precise and consistent to distinguish between a constant and a decrease of the size claimed by Setterfield.

METHOD OF DATA SELECTION

Data has been drawn from four secondary sources: Setterfield [19], Froome and Essen [11], Dorsey [7] and Birge [2]. As there is agreement in these sources concerning the original published values no search of the original sources was made. The values from these four sources have been collected into a single table of 207 values (Appendix A). From these I removed duplicate values and constructed a second table of single valued independent experimental data (SVIED) which contains 158 values, one single value for every recognized experiment (S and D's removed from Appendix A). The SVIED was then analyzed for methods or data which were not acceptable because they were outliers, rejected by scientific authorities or contained anomalous and unacceptable characteristics. The remaining 119 values (SVIEAD) were subjected to a sensitivity analysis. Three additional data were eliminated by the sensitivity analysis leaving 116 data accepted for analysis (DAFA; * or M* in Appendix A). The error bars were taken from the secondary sources except for Setterfield's data where the error bars quoted in Hasofer's regression analysis [13] were used. One exception to this is the error bar for Delambre which is decidedly too small and was increased to a more modest 1000 km/sec. For data which appeared in more than one source the errors were the same with two or three exceptions. The primary use of this data was in justifying the variance assumption of the weighted regression technique and secondarily in the analysis by error bar size.

Single Valued Independent Experimental Data

The data in Appendix A contains many multiple values. These may be divided into three categories. First, there are the values which have been recalculated to take into account some factor missing from the originally published value. Such original values are labeled D as defective. Mostly, these are in vacuo corrections. The second group contains values which were computed from the same original observations but with different statistical treatment. These are reworkings and are labeled M* as multiple values. These have been reduced to single values by taking the median of the various reworkings. The third category are data which were rejected by the experimenters, for example Cornu (1872), and replaced by a subsequent value from a new experiment. Typically, these new data have improved accuracy and precision. These have also been labeled D. Omitted are values which are averages of other data, including the 1771 Encyclopedia Britannica value, and values quoted from unidentified sources. These have been labeled S for secondary. In addition to removing duplicates, values were added which had previously been lumped into a single average but were experimentally different. The early aberration values from Bradley's research contains observations of different stars at 3 different observatories at different times and deserve to be recognized as separate data points. These values were calculated from Table 2 of Setterfield and Norman. [191]

Unacceptable Methods And Rejected Data

Four methods contain data the majority of which is questionable: radar, quartz modulator, EMU/ESU and Kerr cell. Three radar values are in air and have not been converted to in vacuo for lack of humidity measurements. Radar waves are more sensitive to humidity than visible light so that the usual factor of 1.0002885 may be low [11, p79]. The possible range of the conversion factor is sufficient to cause the radar values to be ambiguous with respect to the hypothesis. Froome and Essen also consider these to be of poor accuracy [11, p79] and, since no humidity measurements were taken, unsuitable for conversion to in vacuo. These have been omitted. The large error bars (in comparison with the other post 1945 data) suggests they would be of little value. The quartz modulator values were considered poor by Froome and Essen. They quote Houstoun: "to say that its (minimum intensity) determination gives no feeling of aesthetic satisfaction is an understatement" [11, p84]. Neither value would survive an outlier analysis and so have been omitted. The EMU/ESU method contains 10 values from 1868 to 1883 which by simple regression line yield an anomalous 934+185 km/sec/year increase. This is clearly an experimental problem not related to any physical changes in the value of c. The magnitude of this change and the number of data is sufficient to produce a rate of increase over 188+85 km/sec/yr for the data as a whole. Exactly where this anomaly ends is difficult to tell and it must be admitted that the decision of Birge, Dorsey and Setterfield to omit all but the Dorsey 1906 datum is a necessary one. The values of the Kerr cell method are unquestionably low in comparison to post 1945 data [17]. However, no reviewer to my knowledge has been able to find errors of the size which would reconcile these results. This method was included since Birge, Dorsey and Setterfield included them in their best data.

Rejects are data whose values have been questioned by authorities because of experimental limitations or me lack of credible result. These have been labeled RJR in the Appendix A. Todd [21] in his article on solar parallax excluded both the Fizeau (1849) and Foucault (1862) values from his weighted average of c. DeBray [6] listed all the optical values prior to 1931 and selected only seven which he considered trustworthy. Fizeau (1849), Foucault (1862), Michelson (1878), Young/Forbes (1880), Newcomb (1881.8) and Cornu (1872) were among the values described as preliminary or flawed by systematic errors. Among the optical data I differ from DeBray only in the use of the first and second value of the Perrotin/Prim (1900) experiments, while DeBray treats them as a single experiment. Mulligan and McDonald [17] comment extensively on the Spectral line method. Concerning the 1952 value they comment that Rank later found a systematic error which increased the total error to 15 km/sec. The Rank (1954) value was flawed by a poor wavelength

which obviously affected the prior value as well. The aforementioned values are treated either as 'rejecteds or as defective preliminary values replaced later by a superior datum.

An adjustment for aberration values is necessary before the data is prepared for analysis. The aberration values are calculated from the aberration angle of starlight in air. These calculated values are, thus, in air rather than in vacuo values. Since none of the sources has calculated these individually or suggested an adjustment collectively I added 95 km/sec [11, p48] to each the datum.

Outliers

For the outlier analysis data was divided into three sections: the early data up to 1890, the middle data from 1890 to 1940 and the late data from 1947 to 1967. Data were considered to be outliers if they did not fall within 3 standard deviations of the estimated value from a simple least squares linear regression. These have been labeled O in Appendix A. The laser values were omitted from analysis because atomic clocks were used as a time standard. The frequency of atomic clocks vary in direct proportion to the frequency change in light. Thus, any attempt to measure a change in the frequency of light by using atomic frequency standard is impossible. The break in values and accuracy of the late data is rather obvious and sufficient data exists to make an outlier analysis credible. There was also an obvious break between the 17th-18th century data and the more recent. However, to increase the credibility of the regression at least 25 data were included. The 1890 date provided a convenient boundary. Three of the five data labeled RJ were also determined to be outliers with the other 2 at least 2.5 standard deviations from the estimated value.

Sensitivity

Brown [3] opined that c was constant within the precision of the data. His methodology is seriously flawed [16, p141]. Humphreys [14, p42] questioned why the rate of decrease of c should decrease in direct proportion to our ability to measure it. Humphreys gave no evidence that this was true. As yet no paper has properly addressed this important issue of the sensitivity of the data. First, an estimate of the size of the change in c must be estimated for each method over the interval of time of the different methods used. The quadratic function of Hasofer [13] was used to estimate the difference in values of c at the end points of the various methods and is labeled [Est. (delta) c] in Table 1. The ratio of this estimate to the standard deviation of the method ,which I will call the sensitivity ratio, should be normally distributed. Methods with ratios above 1.65 should be very sensitive to the hypothesized decrease, that is, there is less than a 5% likelihood that the estimated decrease would result from randomness.

The figures in Table 1 represent the sensitivity ratios for methods with 4 or more data as well as the post 1945. These are listed in order of estimated slope(delta c/yr). The EMU/ESU method has been included in the sensitivity analysis for comparison purposes. The statistic was successful in predicting the significance/insignificance of a simple linear regression line in 7 of 9 cases. Five of the six sensitive methods had simple regression line slopes which were significant at the 95% confidence level. Two of the three insensitive methods had insignificant regression lines. If the data with the two smallest ratios(insensitive data) are removed the magnitude of the slopes of their respective regression lines are decreasing significantly and in almost the same order as predicted.

The sensitivity ratio for standing wire values, [21], shows that the standing wire data has insufficient accuracy to distinguish between an empirical trend and randomness. All but the Mercier (1923) datum have been omitted as Birge, Dorsey and Setterfield all included it. The sensitivity of the Roemer data is understated due to the lack of intermediate data. This leads to an artificially high standard deviation. Extra regression lines with and without the Roemer data have been conducted

for Table 2. On the other hand the decision to delete all but one of the EMU/ESU data would seem to be well justified by these results. Not only are the data insensitive to the hypothesized change but the direction and magnitude of the slope overall are anomalous.

REGRESSION MODELS

Regression line models are based on three assumptions:

(1) The expected value of the residuals is zero i.e. E[e(i)] = 0

(2) The variance of the errors(residuals) is constant

(3) The errors(residuals) are independent of the random variable

For a regression line to be accepted as a model (not necessarily a unique model) the residuals must be tested for these three conditions. The c data, however, does not easily lend itself to regression analysis. A simple linear regression will not take into account the varying degrees of reliability of the data. A weighted regression technique exists which weights each data with the inverse square of the error bar. This may satisfy condition 2 (homoscedasticity) but for the c data a poor fit. More importantly, this weighting procedure in the case of the c data causes a correlation between the residuals violating condition 3. The residuals are said to be autocorrelated. The standard test for autocorrelation is called the Durban-Watson test. In the case of the c data the autocorrelation stems from the time dependence of the error bars themselves. The standard technique for correction of autocorrelation is to apply an autocorrelation parameter [18,p356] to the data to smooth it prior to regression. Unfortunately, when applied to the weighted regression line for c data the residuals still fail the Durban-Watson test. Even repeated applications are ineffectual at correcting the problem.

To solve this dilemma, a different weighted regression technique will be used. Let T be the independent random variable representing time and C be the dependent random variable representing the velocity of light. The following presents a quadratic regression model:

C(i) = a + bT(i) + dT(i) (exp 2) + e(i) (1)

where a, b, d are coefficients C and T are random variables and e(i), is the error.

If the variance of e, is proportional to T (exp 2), where T is measured in years prior, the variance of e/T is constant and a regression line will be homoscedastic.

[sigma (e) (exp 2)] = k [T (exp 2)] (2)

where [sigma (e) (exp 2)] is the statistical symbol for variance

Equation (1) is then transformed into

C(i)/T; = a/T(i) + b + DT(i); + e(i)/T(i) (3)

The variance of the errors is

[sigma (exp 2)] [e(i)/T(i)) = [sigma (exp 2)] [e(i)]/[T(i) exp 2)]

= k [T(i) (exp 2)]/ [T(i)) (exp 2)] = k (4)

i.e. the variance of the errors is constant.

This permits a standard simple regression to be performed on the transformed variables. Once the regression has been performed the transformation can be reversed and the appropriate coefficients will be found next to the proper power of T in equation (1) [18, p131]. The first two regressions in Table 2 were checked for autocorrelation by the Durban-Watson test. None were close to significant. These regression lines may properly be called regression models. To test for the assumed condition the data (DAFA) was divided into quintiles and the standard deviation calculated for each. A regression line was calculated for these values using the mid-point of each range for a time reference. The result showed a 2 unit per year increase (T is in time prior to 1967.5) with a coefficient of determination (r2) of .99. Both fit and slope were significant at the 95% confidence level. Thus, the above weighted regression technique is appropriate.

Results of this regression of the data (DAFA) are recorded in Table 2. Dynamic data in the table refers to the whole set of data less the laser data which was timed using atomic rather than dynamic time. The null hypothesis is that there is no decrease in c versus the alternate hypothesis that there is. All 6 tests on the dynamic data and its major subsets showed a significant quadratic term at the 97.5% confidence level. Only the Laser values had insignificant coefficients for both the linear and the quadratic. Note that the time is calculated in years prior to 1967.5 and so positive terms mean an increase in c as one goes back in time. Other methods were also tested. In all cases at least one coefficient is significant and positive. Most of these data sets are too small for their results to be very credible in themselves. However, they are consistent with results of the larger data sets. Kerr cell, standing wire and geodimeter values also had a negative significant value.

Bias

By historical accident some decades and years have more data. This is an historical bias and could led to exaggerated results. To test what bias this influence has a weighted regression was done on the data (DAFA) where values in the same year were replaced by their weighted average. This is listed under One-year Average. The significance level rose indicating this bias lowers the significance of the regression. Simple regressions were also performed on the values less their error bars, i.e. the minimum of their probable values. Since the less reliable data has larger error bars this technique lowers the value of the less reliable data more than the better data. The regression line was still positively and significantly sloped. This was still true at 1.92 times the error bar and the slope was still positive even at 2.47 times the error bar. This should not be true of a set of values representing a constant. Lastly, a simple regression was done on the deleted data. Its slope was decreasing at 98+17 km/sec/yr.

Although significant quadratic relationship has been found in the accepted data and its major subsets, it cannot be assumed that this relationship is due to a physical decrease in the value of c. It has been established that this decrease is empirical and not random.

Other possibilities must be explored as well as the physical one:

(1) Is the decrease dependent on the less reliable 18th century data?

(2) Is the decrease a product of combining methods with systematic or other errors?

(3) Is the decrease a one-sided approach to the current value of c due to experimental or experimenter bias?

To determine the answer to the first question the 18th century values were subtracted from the accepted (DAFA) data. A weighted regression was performed on the remainder. which resulted in a coefficient of T2 significant at the 97 .5 % confidence level. The t test was applied to the average and was significant at the 99.9% confidence level. The removal of the 18th century data does not result in insignificant tests. Could some other data in a specific time interval be responsible for the decrease in the data. Initially a 10 year interval was chosen for analysis but too many of the cells had too little data. The interval was widened to 20 years. Even so, the 18th century data had to be grouped into a single cell and the 1940 cell was moved to 1947-67 to include the 3 extra data.

The t tests for the averages of this group of cells is presented in Table 3. Laser results have been omitted. Of the 7 cells 4 have significant deviations from the accepted value of 299792.458 km/sec. This is much higher than would be expected on the basis of random chance. There were no results in the 25-75 percentile range where half the results would be expected to be. The one cell with the obviously anomalous results is the 1900-1920 era where the predominant values are by the aberration method. This suggests that the aberration values are systematically low. The distribution of aberration and nonaberration values about the accepted value was tabulated. Table 4 shows the number of values above and below the accepted value accumulated by 200 km/sec intervals and a binomial statistic and confidence level for each pair.

** Accepted value = 299792.458 km/sec

For the non-aberration values the binomial test shows significance at the 99% confidence level throughout all ranges of accuracy. The aberration values on the other hand range from 15% to 91%. Not one of the distributions are significant at the 95% confidence level. Yet from Table 2 regression results both of these subsets yield similar and significant T2 coefficients. In addition, the number of aberration values above the accepted value prior to 1900 is 27 of 35 values whereas the after 1900 the distribution is reversed and there are only 11 of 30. The aberration values as a whole have an insignificant distribution over all ranges of accuracy but is composed of two highly different distributions pre and post 1900. It would be expected that the experimental values ought to approach the accepted value whether from above, below or both. This is true of the non-aberration values but not of the aberration values. From the above considerations it may be concluded that the aberration values are the anomalous ones, that they are decreasing at about the same rate and that they decrease to a value lower than the non-aberration values, i.e. they are systematically low. From the significance of the weighted regressions and the t-test on the post 18th century data it may be concluded that there is still a significant decrease in the values of that era and this despite the effects of a systematic error in the aberration values which reduces the value of the T2 coefficient of the whole data below those of the corresponding aberration and non-aberration values.

The second possible explanation for the decrease in c values is that it is a product of different systematic errors in the various methods. In such cases a significant portion of the methods ought to show constancy. From the results of Table 1 it can be seen that only the EMU/ESU shows a positive slope by simple regression and of those methods which have data sensitive enough to find a decrease all but one have significant slopes. The weighted regression lines show no substantial difference. The aberration and non-aberration coefficients are both significant. The combination of these two in fact decreases the regression coefficients likely because of the systematic error in the aberration values. The omission of the Roemer data still leaves a significant weighted regression line. The post-1945 data is also significant. This leaves 15 other values representing mainly the Kerr cell and optical values. The Kerr cell values are also decreasing with time but because they are all less than the accepted value they actually decrease the size of the slope of the weighted regression

model. The optical measurements have a significant linear decrease and an insignificant quadratic coefficient. There is no sign that a set of constant method(s) is(are) causing c values to be misinterpreted as a decreasing trend. In fact, certain systematic problems can be shown to be lowering the rate of decrease in the regression model.

The third possibility is harder to determine since the behavior of the data under the assumption of a physically decreasing value of c and a decreasing value of c due to a one-sided approach to the accepted value is almost the same. The c values do contain at least one example of this kind of phenomenon. The EMU/ESU has a very steep trend in the 1868-1883 range (10 of 25 data) which is 5 times steeper than for the whole data set. The t-test on the average of these two subsets have substantially different confidence levels (99.5% and 40%). As the experiments became more accurate a one-sided negative systematic error was obviously reduced more than all the others. After a certain point the reduction in this error was no longer significant and the values stabilized. This kind of behavior ought to be detectable by arranging the data by error bar size and examining the results for obvious breaks in the significance.

In Table 5, the averages and simple regression slopes for different error bars intervals are listed together with the significance of the their t-tests. If the hypothesis is that the values of c are approaching from one-side due to experimental or experimenter bias than there ought to be a break in the confidence levels. There is such a break at 100 km/sec where significance drops to 74% . However, at 5 km/sec this significance reappears and the confidence levels remains significant down to the .5 km/sec cell after which there is too little data. Furthermore, the difference in the confidence levels between the 5 and 10 km/sec group is over 93 points! This jump is caused by adding only 6 data to 23. These data contain all 4 Kerr cell values which are all below the accepted value by significant amounts. They also prevent significance in the 20 and 50 km/sec group. The 100 km/sec group contains many of the post 1900 aberration values which are systematically low and it would be anticipated that these would have considerable effect on the 100 km/sec cell. The confidence levels of the simple regression lines show an identical pattern; the only cells to show loss of significance are those affected by Kerr cell and post-1900 aberration. The only example of one-sided errors or biases which have affected the values of c to be found are the EMU/ESU values. Although others [14] have mentioned this phenomenon as an explanation for the decrease in the values of c, they have not given examples.

DISCUSSION

A major focus of this paper is to create a set of c values which is appropriate for analysis with respect to the Setterfield hypothesis. It is appropriate to examine what the inclusion of these deletions would have. The inclusion of EMU/ESU data would definitely have a significant influence on all results except the error bar analysis. This method's lack of accuracy and precision cannot justify its inclusion in this analysis. Those who would include this method will no doubt disagree with the conclusions of this analysis. Both the rejected and the outliers, if added back in would augment the size of the decrease in c. They would also increase the initial averages and slopes in the time and error bar analysis.

To ascertain what bias the deletions have as a whole a simple regression line through the deleted data was done. This yielded a 98+17 km/sec/yr decrease. The average (300157 km/sec) was above that of the DAFA data but not significantly. The regression slope is significant despite the inclusion of the EMU/ESU data. It cannot therefore be claimed that results favoring the Setterfield hypothesis are attributable to the bias in the selection of deleted data.

Regression lines have been published by a number of researchers and have played a key role in the debate [1], [4], [9], [13], [16]. It would then be appropriate to give some account of them. Norman's regression lines although significant are all unweighted as are Brown and Evered's tertiary polynomial. None of these are homoscedastic. Aardsma's and Hasofer's published weighted regression lines which are homoscedastic. Aardsma's is linear and not significant and Hasofer's is quadratic and is significant. However, but both fail the Durban-Watson statistic at the 99% confidence level i.e. the residuals of the lines are autocorrelated. In addition, some error bars in Hasofer's regression analysis have been challenged which would change the significance [10, p83]. Thus, no regression line published to date has met all three conditions for a regression line model. It may be noted in defense of Aardsma's work that he was merely constructing an weighted average rate of change. For this purpose he used the required technique. However, in my opinion he has failed to grasp the complexity and systematic errors of the data and thus the need for a broader and deeper analysis.

Several factors led me to this opinion. First, the weighting of Aardsma's line puts over 90% of the weight on 6 data points in the 1956-1967 era. The average unweighted slope in this era is less than a .03 km/sec/yr decrease. Thus there is a bias in the weights of the data towards the era with the smallest slope. In such cases, one must be wary that one's interpretations are valid beyond the small number of data which effectively determine the results. The bias can be lessened by reducing the weighting factor or reducing the number of data where the heaviest weighting occurs. The weighted one-year-average regression line in Table 2 is one such technique. Another possibility would be to regress the pre-1945 data to test whether insignificant change is restricted to the post-1945 data.

Second, the Durban-Watson test for Aardsma's regression line is significant at the 99% confidence level indicating that the residuals from this line still form a significant time dependent sequence: that is, not all the decrease in the data is reflected in the regression coefficient. Furthermore, there are major corrections which must be made to Aardsma's data. Although not stated in Setterfield's paper the EMU/ESU, standing wire and aberration methods contain 92 data for which the in vacuo adjustment has not been made. In addition, several values are duplicates and triplicates which add to the bias. These biases act together to minimize the slope and the significance of his result. Thus, his conclusions are not based on satisfactory evidence.

PREDICTIONS

The quality of a scientific hypothesis must be judged not only by its fit to empirical data but also by its predictions. The effect that a decreasing c would have on other physical constants if the

frequency of light were decreasing has been presented by Norman and Setterfield [19}. They claim their analysis verifies the predictions of their hypothesis. Testing of this claim will be the subject of future research. However, there is the question whether Setterfield's distinction between atomic time and dynamic or gravitational time has long term physical effects rather than a minor temporary one. There needs to be a demonstration that over long periods the discrepancy between atomic time and gravitational time is significant. Fortunately, examples can be found.

Stars ages are calculated using atomic isotope ratios of hydrogen and helium. These ratios are interpreted as yielding ages up to billions of years. These ages are in atomic years. However, remnants of supernova stars can dated by various techniques which are dependent on its rate of expansion, a dynamic process. Their ages, according to Davies' [5] analysis of supernova remnants in our galaxy, range up to 7,000-8,000 years in gravitational time. Although age estimations are still crude it must be admitted that a wide discrepancy exists between the atomic ages of stars and gravitational age of supernova remnants and that this is not expected according to conventional theories.

Zircon crystals embedded in deep granites in the Earth's crust and studied by Gentry are dated by Uranium/Lead isotopes ratios (atomic process) to be over a billion years old. However, the rate of diffusion (dynamic process) of the helium byproduct shows the radioactive decay to be 10,000 years old or less [12, p52-53]. Gentry accounts for this age discrepancy by suggesting a supernatural increase in radioactivity during brief periods prior to or during the flood. Whatever the cause, the data cannot be anticipated by the conventional view that atomic and gravitational ages are equivalent. Setterfield's hypothesis predicts what conventional scientists are forced to discount.

Another problem concerns the spiral appearance of many of the galaxies in the universe. In order for spiral galaxies to retain their shape the velocities of the stars within the arms of the spirals ought to vary in direct proportion to their radii. This is not observed. All the stars in the arms within each spiral galaxy have the approximately the same speed [20]. Thus, the stars in the outer portion of the arms, having a much longer orbit, trail farther and farther behind the inner ones as time goes on. Conversely, if one goes back in time the stars on the inner portion of the spirals would back up faster than those in the outer portion and the spiral shape would look less curved. As the astronomers look farther into space they are looking at images of galaxies whose light was emitted earlier in time which ought to appear progressively less curved or less wound-up spiral galaxies. Since the average rotation period is in the order of 200 million years there ought to be some discernible differences beyond 200 million light years. Astronomers have failed to find any such progression in their observations up to l billion light-years [8]. This, too, is a natural consequence of the decreasing c hypothesis in that light travel time is much lower than conventionally assumed because of the higher velocity of light in the past.

Finally, every radioactive isotope known with an atomic number less than or equal to 92 and a half-life greater than 700 million years is found naturally in the Earth's crust. With the exception of carbon-14 which is produced continually in the upper atmosphere and isotopes which are by-products of other long half-life isotopes there are no short half-life isotopes (less than 700 million years) occurring naturally in the crust [15]. If radioactive decay values were constant and the Earth were 4-5 billion years old then long half-life isotopes should still exist after 4-5 billion years but not the short half-life ones (see Table 6). This evidences agrees with the standard evolutionary geology. Setterfield's hypothesis predicts the same results as the evolutionary model but provides an alternative naturalistic explanation for this distribution, one within a short Earth history. Creationist explanations have focused heavily on individual ratios and methods. I could find no creationist papers which explain the above distribution.

CONCLUSIONS

The above analysis has accepted the published values, reworkings and corrections as valid. This does not mean that new information has not or will not arise to change the assessment of the proper value which should be assigned to the observations. It would be entirely appropriate to reevaluate the published values in light of any new techniques or knowledge. This I leave to the physicists. My purpose here is to provide motivation and justification for such research.

From my analysis it may be reasonably concluded that:

(1) EMU/ESU and standing wire data are too insensitive to test Setterfield's hypothesis.

(2) Both Aberration and Kerr Cell results have systematically low values.

(3) c(t) = 299792 + .031 x [(1967.5-t)(exp 2)] is a suitable regression model for the velocity of light values in the last 250 years.

(4) Tests of the selected data strongly support an decrease in the values of c. No evidence of experimental causes could be found for the observed decrease.

(5) Predictive abilities of the Setterfield hypothesis make a physical interpretation of the empirical decrease not only reasonable but credible.

The regression model in this paper ought to be given priority over previously published regression lines since it is the only one which is weighted, homoscedastic and non-autocorrelated. In addition it is the only one based on one in vacuo datum per experiment. It provides the soundest grounds so far to decide the question. The various non-random distributions of the data by date, precision, accuracy, and method are too consistent and pervasive to have been caused by systematic experimental and experimenter biases. Those biases and systematic errors in the data which can be identified are not helpful in providing a non-physical explanation of the results. The prediction of a substantially divergent ages for dynamic processes proceeding from nuclear processes is a very critical test of the Setterfield hypothesis. There exist physical examples which extend past the three hundred years of data used here. These data are compatible with Setterfield's hypothesis but unexpected from conventional physics. The agreement of statistical and physical evidences provide ample grounds for pursuing physical mechanisms to explain the decrease in the velocity of light.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to all those who contribute their time and talents to these conferences. Their energy and commitment are admired. I would also thank Dr. Tom Goss whose professional skills in statistical analysis were not only helpful but were given freely and lovingly despite his busy schedule. Lastly, I would like to thank Lambert Dolphin for his encouragement through the trials of life as well as science.

REFERENCES

[1] G. Aardsma, Has the Speed of Light Decayed Recently? Paper 1, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 25: 1 (1988) 36-40.

[2] R.T. Birge, The General Physical Constants: as of August 1941 with Details on the Velocity of Light Only, Reports on Progress in Physics 8 (1941) 90-134.

[3] R.H. Brown, Statistical Analysis of the Atomic Constants, Light and Time, Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 25:4 (1988) 91-95.

[4] R.H. Brown, Speed of Light Statistics, Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 26:4 (1990) 142-143.

[5] K. Davies, The Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, K. Walsh et al, editors, Vol. 3 (1994), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.

[6] G. DeBray, The Velocity of Light, Nature Vol. 120 (1927) 602-604.

[7] N.E. Dorsey, The Velocity of Light, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 34 (1944) 1-110.

[8] A. Dressler, Galaxies Long Ago and Far Away, Sky and Telescope Vol. 85:4 (1993) 22-25.

[9] M.G. Evered, Computer Analysis of the Historical Values of the Velocity of Light, Creation Ex Nihilo Tech. J. Vol. 5:2 (1991) 94-96.

[10] M.G. Evered, Further Evidence Against the Theory of a Recent Decrease in c, Creation Ex Nihilo Tech. J. Vol. 6:1 (1992) 80-89.

[11] K.D. Froome and L. Essen, The Velocity of Light and Radio Waves, (1969), Academic Press, NY.

[12] R.V. Gentry, Radioactive Halos in a Radiological and Cosmological Perspective, Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division. AAAS (1984), 38-63.

[13] A.M. Hasofer, A Regression Analysis of the Historical Light Measurements, Creation Ex Nihilo Tech. J. Vol. 4 (1991) 94-96.

[14] D.R. Humphreys, Has the Speed of Light Decreased Recently? Paper 2, Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 25:1 (1988) 40-45. [15] McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Sixth Ed., Vol. 15 107, McGraw-Hill, NY.

[16] A.L. Montgomery, Statistical Analysis of c and Related Atomic Constants, Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 26:4 (1990) 138-142.

[17] J.F. Mulligan and D F. McDonald, Some Recent Determinations of the Velocity of Light II, American Journal of Science Vol. 25 (1957)180-192 [18] J. Neter and W. Wasserman, Applied Linear Statistical Models, 1974, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.

[19] T. Norman and B. Setterfield, The Atomic Constants. Light and Time, 1987, Invited Research Paper for Lambert Dolphin, SRI International, Menlo Park Clara, CA.

[20] V. Rubin, Dark Matter in Spiral Galaxies, Scientific American, Vol. 248:6 (1983), 96-108.

[21] D.P. Todd, Solar Parallax from the Velocity of Light, American Journal of Science, series 3 Vol. 19 (1880): 59-64.

APPENDIX A: All Data Combined. Date Set: Excel File (CDATALL2.xls) or Data Set: HTML (cdatall3.html)

Entered April 29, 1995

Is the Velocity of Light Constant in Time?by Alan Montgomery

Mathematician218 McCurdy Drive, Kanata, Ontario K2L 2L6 Canada

andLambert Dolphin

Physicist1103 Pomeroy Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95051

ABSTRACT The possibility that the velocity of light, c, is not a fixed constant is reconsidered by statistical analysis of the historical measurements collected from four sources. Our hypothesis testing of the selected data shows the measured value of the velocity of light has decreased over the past 250 years. Furthermore, the probability of some systematic or experimental problem was found to be low. Brief analysis of constants other than c suggests that those constants which involve atomic phenomena and units of time are also apparently changing. A third set of constants with no obvious dependence on c were analyzed and show no apparent variability with time. A variable velocity of light implies that atomic clocks and dynamical clocks do not run in step---that atomic time has been decreasing with respect to dynamical time.

BACKGROUND

From the times of the ancient Greek philosophers until Galileo light transmission was regarded as instantaneous---that is, the velocity of light, c, was assumed to be infinite. Although some scientists held contrary views these were in the minority. Galileo attempted the first measurement of c around 1638 by means of lanterns equipped with shutters over a baseline of the order of a mile. Though unsuccessful for obvious reasons, the scientific community finally considered the possibility that c was finite. The Danish astronomer Olaf Roemer in 1676 announced that he had measured a time delay in the eclipses of Jupiter's moon Io which he ascribed to transit time of light over the diameter of the earth's orbit. He suggested this was proof that c was finite. Unfortunately, Descartes and others were unconvinced and it was not until 1729 that the English astronomer Bradley proved Roemer correct by measuring the aberration angle of several stars. After two centuries of measuring c, a French astronomer, Gheury de Bray claimed in 1931 that the various measurements of c formed a trend (Ref. 1). This hypothesis remained controversial during the 1930's. By about 1940 Birge and Dorsey had swayed most against it. In the post war era new and substantially different data emerged and the pre-war values were generally ignored. By 1983 the velocity of light was defined as a constant at 299792.458 km/sec.

The controversy might have been forgotten entirely had it not been for Thomas Van Flandern of the National Bureau of Standards who noticed a slight deviation of the orbital period of the moon between 1955 and 1981 as measured by atomic clocks (Ref. 2). He concluded "...if this result has any generality to it, this means that atomic phenomena are slowing down with respect to dynamic phenomena...though we cannot tell whether the changes are occurring at the atomic or dynamic level." In 1987 Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield pointed out the de Bray and Van Flandern hypotheses were equivalent if the change in c were due to a change in electromagnetic frequencies as measured by dynamic clocks. They proceeded to analyze the measurements of c and other atomic constants and concluded that this was indeed so. (Ref. 3)

The data assembled for this study came from four sources: Birge (Ref. 4, Dorsey (Ref. 5), Froome & Essen (Ref. 6) and Norman & Setterfield (Ref 3). Norman & Setterfield concluded that the velocity of light when measured by dynamic (gravitational) time standards showed a systematic decrease. Their claim is supported by the results of many of their statistical tests but some negative results were omitted in their report and some of their data points appear to us to be questionable.

The data they selected in their Table 11 (best 57 values) unquestionably supports the thesis that the velocity of light is decreasing but their selection procedure appears subjective and their efforts to identify other possible sources for the apparent trend are weak.

Our purpose in writing this paper is to catalogue as much relevant data as possible, to select a subset of the most appropriate data, and to analyze the selected data with a view to confirming or denying the decreasing c (Setterfield) hypothesis.

SELECTION OF DATA

Our basic approach has been to include the maximum number of legitimate experimental measurements of c (by recognized measurement methods) in order to maximize the credibility of the statistics while minimizing any distortions due to poor data points. Our combined master data set, Table 1, compiled from the above-mentioned sources yielded 193 data points. To be excluded from this master set are values of c for which the original observations are missing or unknown, duplicate values from various reworked observations, dubious values from the earliest measurements of a given method where technique was still poor, values from poor methods, and outliers.

In compiling our selected list of c measurements, Table 2, we kept data even if there was some doubt about the availability of original observations at the time. When measurements by a given experimenter were reworked for the purpose of adjusting for some known defect we selected the reworked values. When reworkings were merely statistical we selected the value most compatible with the values of surrounding data. We then excluded data in cases where the experimenter himself or his peer group was critical of the credibility of the results---especially on initial data of a method or when the experiment was redone by the original experimenter within a short period of time. These data were of lower precision. Measurements of c by certain methods were excluded when accuracy and consistency of data were poor. Since the accuracy and precision of the data varied greatly, outliers were determined from piecewise analysis of 18th century, l9th century, pre-1945 and post-1945 data.

We also felt it necessary to include in our subset three Bradley stellar aberration values in the 1727-1757 era, as different stars or different observatories were involved in the listed data. We excluded the EMU/ESU method of measuring c although we did keep the Rosa/Dorsey datum as it alone seemed to have received general acceptance. We felt at first that the standing wire results should be treated the same way, but after adjusting the values to in vacuo we concluded the average accuracy did not warrant their exclusion. The radar data also posed a special problem. Three data points could not be converted to in vacuo because the conversion factor is affected significantly by water vapor which was not measured. The range of the conversion factor and the accuracy of the data were such that tests were ambivalent over the possible range of the conversion factor. The fourth radar value of c had a systematic error.

As a result of our deselection process, 4 data points were rejected as secondary values, as well as 28 duplicates (reworked), 9 poor initial values (rejected by the experimenter), 26 points due to unacceptable methods (rejected method) and 5 as outliers. (The starred values in Table 1 are the values we selected into Table 2). The deleted data were also analyzed as a check on our procedures. In all, 120 of 193 original data points were selected. The selected list includes about 75% of Setterfield's data and twice as many points as his best 57 values of c.

Finally, the laser method values of c were obtained using atomic clocks as a time standard. These values do not come under the proposed hypothesis since the atomic clock's time would change

uniformly with a change in c. They were omitted from our tests unless explicitly stated, although they have not been deleted in compiling Table 2.

TABLE 1 (94k)

TABLE 2 (60k)

METHODOLOGY

The basic technique we used to analyze Table 2, the selected data, is the standard statistical hypothesis testing. Four statistical testing methods were used in this paper. These are: the Student t, the binomial (which is here assumed to be distributed approximately Normal), the run and the mean square successive difference (MSSD). For the Student t statistic, the null hypothesis is that c is constant at 299792.458 km/sec. For the binomial test, the null hypothesis is that the distribution of values is random about 299792.458 km/sec, and for the run and MSSD tests, constancy as opposed to trend over time. The run test quantifies the tendency for data higher (or lower) than the mean to cluster in sequences called runs [the median can also be chosen as a central value]. The MSSD measures the serial correlation of the residuals with time and the MSSD is very similar to the Durban-Watson test for autocorrelation, (Refs. 7-9). The run and MSSD tests require ordered data. Where two or more data points had the same year we averaged them by weighting their values by the inverse of their error bars.

The run and MSSD directly test for trend. These tests are of primary importance in examining the credibility of the hypothesis of changing c. The t-test and the binomial tests are tests of the currently accepted value and may or may not provide evidence of a trend. It is also important to note that the MSSD is a parametric test using actual values but the run tests is non-parametric using only the position of the data. Because of this, the run test needs more data to be credible. Many of the cells in our analysis were too small for the run test to be done. After these four tests were applied to the data as a whole, the data was analyzed by time frame, by accuracy, by method and by error bar size to test the validity the overall results.

ANALYSIS OF SELECTED DATA SET

The overall results of the testing of the Setterfield hypothesis (that c is not a fixed constant), by Student t, run and mean square successive difference tests are shown in Table 3.

All test results exceed the 95% confidence level (i. e., there is less than a 5% chance of obtaining this statistic from a truly random distribution). The run statistics are higher than their counter-parts due partly to the large number of negative residuals in the post-1954 era. The high precision and accuracy of this data tends to inflate the size of the last run and its confidence level. However, if the final run is omitted the confidence level is still 99%. These results indicate a high probability of a decreasing trend in the measurements of the velocity of light.

Before these results can be accepted as support for the Setterfield hypothesis several questions must be answered:

First, are the above results dependent upon the acceptance of the early 18th century values? Second, are the results a combination of different methodologies with random or systematic

errors?

Third, is it possible that the values represent a one-sided approach to the current value of c due to the experimenters' bias towards previous values and an increasing precision of the measurements?

To answer the first question we analyzed the selected data without the 18th century values. The t-test lost its significance---but surprisingly the MSSD and run tests remain remarkably stable (Confidence Levels t-test: 88.7%, MSSD 95%, and run 99.9%). This suggested the possibility of some systematically low data. We then analyzed the data by decade. This left many cells with too few data points so a 20 year range was substituted grouping the 18th century data into a single cell and adjusting the final cell to 1947-1967. The results are shown in Table 4.

The most incongruent data lies in the 1900.1-1920 and the 1920.1-1940 eras where the dominant methods are the stellar aberration and the Kerr cell. We divided the data into aberration and non-aberration subgroups and found the MSSD and run tests for non-aberration data were unchanged but the t-test data decreased (see Table 6). The MSSD and the run tests for the aberration data also remained unchanged but the t-test data showed a small decrease.

We then analyzed the distribution of aberration and non-aberration data around the accepted value of 299,792.458 km per sec by 100 km/sec bands. The resulting distribution was tested by the binomial statistic and the results are shown in Table 5.

Results for all data were skewed towards the higher c values but only the 100 km/sec and the over-500 km/sec bands were significant. The stellar aberration method contributed more than half the selected values and had a substantial impact on the results, especially the 200 to 500 km/sec range. The non-aberration binomial statistics were beyond the 99.8% confidence level in all bands while the corresponding values for aberration values were between 5% and 50%. More importantly, the distribution of aberration values by time shows that 26 of 35 pre-1900 values are high while 29 of 33 post-1900 values are low. This confirmed to us that the aberration measurements of c are decreasing as in the whole set, but that its values are distributed in a lower range, i.e., they are systematically low.

The loss of significance of the t test is due to systematic problems in the aberration values. A significant decrease in measurements of c continues in the post 18th century data.

Is there any physical reason why the aberration values should be systematically low? Setterfield informed us that all the reported aberration values were unadjusted for in vacuo conditions. This means that about 95 km/sec should be added to these values. We were also informed that certain measurements had been done using a zenith tube in conjunction with photography and that these results were higher than those done at the same time by human eye. However, Setterfield's estimate of 300 km/sec was based on a simple ratio of two measurements. We felt that more evidence was required in order to apply the correct adjustment. Therefore we did not correct the data. (If this correction is made the hypothesis of decreasing c is even stronger).

To answer the second question, the measurements of c were analyzed by method of measurement. The results are displayed in Table 6 and ordered according to size of data set. The two largest cells (Aberration and Non-aberration) had significant MSSD and run tests although both t-tests were lower. The smaller cells must be regarded as having insufficient data to be credible. They are reproduced here for completeness. Typical of the credibility problem is the Roemer cell whose tests are not significant, yet a least-squares regression line shows an average decrease of 27.5 km/sec/year which is significant at the 99.99% confidence level. If the Encyclopedia Britannica value of 1771 (Table 1) which we deleted, were to be used, both MSSD and t-test would be significant. The three methods' results which differ substantially from the overall pattern are of some interest. The standing wire results are to be expected of data with large bars and variance. The large difference between the Kerr cell t test and MSSD test are indicative of a systematic error. Although the spectral line method was not deleted, Setterfield does mention problems with the wave length determination.

To answer the third question, we analyzed the data by error bar size. If the decreases in the measured value of c are a result of increased measurement precision we would expect to see a decrease in the significance of the confidence levels as the true value of c is approached. The results are shown in Table 7.

Overall, 6 of 11 tests were significant at the 95% confidence level. There are three distinct subgroups in Table 7. The first, from ±1000 km/sec to ±100 km/sec, clearly shows decreasing confidence levels. In the ±50 km/sec to ±10 km/sec group the confidence level suddenly jumps to 92% and then starts to decrease again. In the third group, from ±5 km/sec to ±0.5 km/sec, the confidence levels are steady and significant.

The results may appear at first to be ambiguous---both decreasing levels and steady significant ones. However, from what has been learned from earlier analysis we know the aberration values are systematically low and there are a significant number of them in the 60 to 200 km/sec range---just where the confidence levels are decreasing.

The dramatic drop in confidence levels from ±20 km/sec to ±10 km/sec and the equally dramatic rise between ±10 km/sec and ±5 km/sec tells us that there is a systematic problem with data which

have error bars in that range. Kerr cell results provide 4 out of 6 of these data. It must be concluded that our earlier suspicions of systematic error in the Kerr cell measurements appear valid.

In order to further test for suspicious sequences that might be a product of experimenter expectations, a search was made for consecutive data where the points were both higher than the current value of c and at the same time decreasing with time. Taking into account that 58% of the data points are higher than the accepted value of c, we found that the occurrences of the above sequences were close to the accepted values. That is, there was no statistically significant deviation from the expected value.

Taking these various problems in the data into account it must be concluded that the decrease in the measurements of c cannot be attributed to the increase in the precision of the measurements.

DISCUSSION

The overall pattern of statistics shows there is a decreasing trend in the measurements of c. All 3 run and MSSD tests on non-atomic-time standard data as well as most tests in each subset were significant. The analysis of distribution, methods, precision, and historical eras produced interesting information on the discrepancies in the data but no pattern of experimental or human error to which decreasing values of c could reasonably be ascribed.

Norman and Setterfield also analyzed (in addition to values of c), measurements of the charge on the electron, e, the specific charge, e/mc, the Rydberg constant, R, the gyromagnetic ratio, the quantum Hall resistance, h/e2, 2e/h, and h/e, various radioactive decay constants, and Newton's gravitational constant G.

Three of these Norman and Setterfield quantities found to be constant, namely e, R, and G. These constants are either independent of time or independent of atomic processes. The other five quantities, which are related to atomic phenomena and which involve time in their units of measurement, they found to trend with the exception of the quantum Hall resistance.

We re-analyzed these data, excluding outliers. Our results, Table 8, differed from Norman and Setterfield's only for the Rydberg constant where we obtained rejection of constancy at the 95% confidence level for the run test (but not the MSSD). The available measurements of radioactive decay constants do not have enough precision to be useful.

Norman and Setterfield also assumed that photon energy, hf, remains constant over time even as c varies. This forces the value of hc to be constant in agreement with astronomical observations. The consequence of this is that h must vary inversely with c and therefore the trend in the constants containing h are restricted as to their direction. We calculated the least-squares straight line for all the c-related constants and found no violation of this restriction. In all cases the trends in "h constants" are in the appropriate direction. In addition, a least squares line was plotted for c, the gyromagnetic ratio, q/mc, and h/e for the years 1945-80. The slopes continued to remain statistically significant, and in the appropriate direction. Furthermore the percentage rate of change varied by only one order of magnitude---very close, considering how small some of the cells are. By contrast, the t test results on the slopes of the other three constants (e, R, and G) were not statistically significant.

Thus there appears to be a remarkable interdependence of those constants that are related to frequencies within the atom---both in direction and rate of change---that the other constants do not show. Unless this apparent dependence can be explained as an artifact of the actual data, the changes and relationships between these constants must have some real physical cause.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that:

The evidence for a decrease in the measurements of c is very strong. There is no evidence that reasonably suggests that this decrease is caused by experimental

problems or early less precise data (larger error bars). There is statistical evidence of trend in certain other "constants." This seems to be related to

a physical dependence on a change in frequency of waves (or time) inside and outside of the atom.

The weakest point in our analysis is our data selection process. If we erred in any of our choices it is in the direction of including too much rather than too little data. The reader is invited to conduct his/her own study using the data in Table 1.

We hope that other researchers can suggest some testable implications of the variable c hypothesis, and that others can suggest how we might obtain "fossil" values for c---that is, values of c prior to the first experimental measurements. We hope also that researchers will be stimulated to reexamine the original c data measurements themselves. This might make a good doctoral dissertation. Also, we suggest there is a need to quantify the apparent systematic errors that are found in the aberration and Kerr cell data.

Since a non-constant velocity of light (and related changes in certain other "constants" of nature) has profound implications for cosmology and physics we urge further study of the working hypothesis that c is not a fixed constant. For example, Troitskii has suggested a theoretical cosmology in which c is allowed to vary. He claims his model fits the available data as well as the current Big Bang cosmology (Ref 10).

REFERENCES

1. de Bray, M. E. J. Gheury, The Velocity of Light, Nature, 127, 522, Apr. 4, 1931

2. Van Flandern, T. C., Is the Gravitational Constant Changing? Precision Measurements and Fundamental Constants II, B. N. Taylor and W. D. Phillips (editors), National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 617, 1984.

3. Setterfield, Barry and Norman, Trevor, The Atomic Constants Light and Time, Special Research Report prepared for Lambert Dolphin, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA., August 1987.

4. Birge, Raymond T., The General Physical Constants, Reports on Progress, in Physics 8, 1941.

5. Dorsey, N. E., The Velocity of Light, Transactions of the American Physical Society, 34, Part 1, Oct. 1944.

6. Froome, K. D. and Essen, L., The Velocity of Light and Radio Waves, Academic Press, London, 1967.

7. Bhattacharyya, G., and R. Johnson, Statistical Concepts and Methods, (1977), John Wiley and Sons, New York.

8. Crow, E. L., F. A. Davis, and M. W. Maxwell, Statistics, (1978) Coles Publishing, Toronto.

9. Draper, N. S., and H. Smith, Applied Regression Analysis, (1966), John Wiley and Sons, New York.

10. Troitskii, V. S., Physical Constants and Evolution of the Universe, Astrophysics and Space Science, 139, (1987) pp. 389-411.

______________

Published in Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 4, no. 5, Sept/Oct 1993

Copyright 1993 by Galilean Electrodynamics, PO Box 545 Storrs, CT 06268-0545.

 

 

A CHRONOLOGICAL MODEL FOR THE 1st AND 2nd MILLENNIUM BC Part 1: THE CHRONOLOGY OF EGYPT AND ISRAEL

 

ALAN MONTGOMERY218 MCCURDY Dr.

KANATA, ONCANADA, K2L 2L6

 

ABSTRACT

This paper proposes a Revised Chronology (RC) model for Egypt from the Exodus onwards using secular data. Results compare favourably to the dates of the Biblically Inerrant Chronology (BIC) published previously [Montgomery, 1998]. The 22nd Dynasty is reduced by 74 years. It was preceded, as proposed by Velikovsky by the 18th Dynasty that lasted about 210 years. The Second Intermediate Period, or Hyksos Dynasty preceded it and lasted about 515 years. The Hyksos invasion caused the downfall of the Egyptian 12th Dynasty, which shows the characteristics of the sojourn and Exodus. The Israelites are identified as a group of "egyptianized Asiatics" of the Middle Kingdom level at Tell el-Daba (Goshen). Amenemhet IV is identified as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Joshua's Jericho can be identified as the Middle Bronze Level IV of Tell es-Sultan that was destroyed, circa 1550 (BIC). Since Jericho was abandoned from Joshua until the reign of Ahab 929-908 (BIC) the gap from Level IV to the succeeding Late Bronze II town must be at least 621 (BIC) years. This confirms the 472-year advance of the 18th Dynasty as proposed.

KEYWORDS: Exodus, Bible, inerrant, Egypt, Middle Kingdom, Babylon, chronology, Josephus, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, archaeology, and Velikovsky.

INTRODUCTION

Finkelstein recently claimed that the archaeologists had demonstrated that Abraham and Isaac did not use camels; Jacob and Joseph never went to Egypt; Moses never led the Israelite nation out of Egyptian bondage into the Sinai nor fought with the town of Arad; Joshua never conquered Canaan; and David and Solomon never controlled a empire to the border of the Euphrates. The Old Testament was a fraud [Finkelstein, 2001]. Archaeology has become the 20th century's most potent science of unbelief. The current view starts with the assumption that Ramses II was the Pharaoh was the Exodus, which, together with the facts of archaeology, leads logically to the conclusion that the Bible is false. On the other hand, if the Bible is inerrant then this assumption must be false. Who then is the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

The Biblically Inerrant Chronology (BIC) paper constructed biblical dates back to the Exodus. These ought not to remain biblical but should be applied to problems of secular chronology. This paper proposes a Revised Chronology (RC) model based on secular historical and radiocarbon evidences to date the Exodus in Egyptian history to circa 1590 - the BIC Exodus date. Validation of the Revised Model follows not only from the agreement with BIC dates but also from archaeology

and Babylonian chronology. Biblically Inerrant Dates (BID) differ from Generally Accepted Dates (GAD) as follows: the fall of Jerusalem, 590 (586 GAD), the construction of the temple, 1023 (967 GAD), and the Exodus, 1591 (1270 to 1446 GAD) [Montgomery, 1998]. All dates are BC unless otherwise indicated.

The Exodus has been placed at various times. Josephus dated the Exodus about 1662. He and scholars such as Africanus, Clement, Tatian and Theophilus believed that at this time Pharaoh Ahmose I drove out the Hyksos. Josephus identified them with 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]. Eusebius alone opines that the pharaoh of the Exodus was a late 18th Dynasty pharaoh named Cencheres. These guesses are the product of chronological juxtaposition. Manetho said that Ahmose attacked the Hyksos stronghold at Avaris and drove them into Syria where they built "Jerusalem". A contemporary inscription from the tomb of Ahmose, an army officer of Ahmose I, says that the Hyksos withdrew to Sharuhen where he besieged them 3 years and took the city [Wilson, 1969c, p. 233]. On the contrary, Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites go. The Israelites left despite him. When Pharaoh pursued them, he and his army were drowned [Ex 14; Ps 106:11; Ps 136:15]. The Hyksos were not Israelites. Ahmose's mummy was discovered in AD 1881 in the "Royal Cache". He did not drown in the Red Sea nor was he the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

In the 17th century Archbishop Ussher placed the Exodus at 1492. Modern conservatives date it near 1446 during the reign of either Thutmose III or his son Amenhotep II. Thutmose III was perhaps the greatest military leader of the pharaohs. He conquered Canaan and all Syria west of the Euphrates River. An Exodus date of 1446 would cause a major disruption in Egyptian power in Canaan and Syria. However, there is no evidence of any serious breakdown at that time. Like the Hyksos/Israelite misidentification, it is a chronological juxtaposition. Besides, the mummies of these pharaohs were found in the tomb of Amenhotep II in AD 1898. They did not drown chasing the Israelites into the Red Sea.

Modern scholars prefer Ramses II as the pharaoh of the Exodus, circa 1270, primarily because Pi-Ramses was the name of the city that the Israelites built. But this assumption is not compelling; Pi-Ramses existed long before. Also this view lacks any confirmation from the archaeology of Palestine that a massive invasion took place near 1230 and fails to allow enough time for the period of the Judges. Merenptah's mummy was discovered in the tomb of Amenhotep II and Ramses's mummy in the "Royal Cache". Neither can be the pharaoh who drowned in the Red Sea.

Bimson concluded from an analysis of Palestinian archaeology that Joshua's conquest began at the end of the Middle Bronze [Bimson, 1981]. Rohl and James support his position [Rohl, 1995; James, et al., 1993, p. 368, n. 4]. Rohl thinks the Exodus occurred in 1446 in the middle of the Second Intermediate Period. His view requires a 350-year compression of Egyptian history. Aardsma dated the Exodus 2446, 1000 years earlier, adjusted for a supposed textual error in I Kings 6:1 that should be read 1480 instead of 480 years [Aardsma, 1993]. Velikovsky placed the Exodus at the end of the 12th Dynasty and that the Hyksos were driven out 400 years later under Ahmose [Velikovsky, 1952]. This involved a 500-year reduction in the Egyptian chronology by removing the 19th, 20th and 21st dynasties to other times. These views are sometimes referred to as Revisionist. The RC model will use Velikovsky's scheme, as it is the one that fits both the evidence and the BIC requirements.

THE REVISED MODEL

The revised model starts with the 22nd Dynasty that ended about 730. A 74-years reduction in its

length results in a starting date 871. The 18th Dynasty preceded it as proposed by Velikovsky. It lasted about 210 years, 1077-868. The Second Intermediate Period (SIP) including the Hyksos Dynasty preceded it and lasted, according to Manetho, about 515 years. The Hyksos invasion caused the downfall of the12th Dynasty and established their power about 1590. Egyptian reigns in this paper follow Grimal [Grimal, 1992].

Libyan Chronology

Conventionally, the invasion of Israel by Libyan Pharaoh Shoshenq I, 926 GAD, is synchronized with the invasion of Pharaoh Shishak in the 5th year of Jeroboam I [I Kings 14:25]. This identification is based on the similarity of their names. In Egyptology this is seldom a good criterion for identifications. A comparison of the two campaigns shows that Shishak campaigned against Judah and Jerusalem while Shoshenq I campaigned in Samaria and Galilee [James, 1993, pp.229-31; Rohl, 1995, pp.122-127]. The comparison of the spoils demonstrates also that they are two different campaigns. Shishak received the treasures of Solomon's temple. The tribute of Shoshenq I was unspecified yet a pharaoh who had taken the treasures of Solomon's Temple would have boasted greatly. Another problem is the alliance between the Ethiopians and the Egyptians during the era of Asa, 30 years later [II Chr 12:3; II Chr 14:8]. The Libyans never made such an alliance. Indeed, Shoshenq I conquered Ethiopia and it did not recover until the 8th century. Finally, Shishak's invasion is dated 982 BID, which is impossible to synchronize with the reign of Shoshenq I, 945925 GAD.

Several evidences point to a lowering of the conventional chronology. First, several pharaohs had shorter reigns in their inscriptions or Manetho's king list. The highest attested year of Osorkon I is 12 and Manetho gives him 15 years. The conventional 35 years is based primarily on a mummy bearing a token of Osorkon I. Markings on its bandage reads year 33 and year 3 of two unknown kings [Kitchen, 1986, p 110]. Such inconclusive evidence is hardly satisfying. Next came Takelot I who has no undisputed inscriptions [Kitchen, 1986, p.310]. His 15-year reign is based on another inscription with no name. Manetho says that the three kings that followed Osorkon I reigned for a total of 25 years. These must include Osorkon II who ruled at least 23 and probably 24 years. Accordingly, Takelot I cannot have reigned more than 1 year. Accordingly, Libyan chronology could be lowered by 34 years.

Second, Manetho (Africanus) recorded that the Libyans' 9 kings reigned 120 years although their individual reigns summed to 116. If the last king, who reigned for only a short period, is omitted then the first 8 kings reigned 120 years for an average of 15 years. Even if a 20-year average were used the expected length of the dynasty would be only 160 years, 60 years shorter than Kitchen's dates.

Thirdly, there are genealogical inconsistencies in the middle of the dynasty. Kapes, the wife of Shoshenq I, outlived her great-grandson Osorkon II, who died, according to GAD dates, 74 years after Shoshenq I [Kitchen, p.311 n.381]. Even if she was much younger than her husband, this is hardly credible. The proposed dates in Table 1 reduce the problem by 34 years. Hor x was vizier under Osorkon II. His nephew's grandson, Hor viii, was attested in the reign of Osorkon III of the parallel 23rd Dynasty [Kitchen, 1986, p.133]. From the middle of the reign of Osorkon II, 863 GAD to the middle of the reign of Osorkon III 764 GAD should be 60 years (using 20 years a generation) rather than 99. This suggests the accepted chronology between Osorkon II and Osorkon III is too long by about 40 years. Kitchen admits that this genealogy "would allow the 23rd Dynasty Petubates (818-793) to begin soon after Osorkon II", 40 years less than GAD [Kitchen,1986, p.132]. Similarly, Neteru iv and Nakhtefmut B lived in the reign of Osorkon III. The former was the grandson of Hor vii and the latter was the great grandson of Hariese, both contemporaries of

Osorkon II. Also, Crown Prince Shoshenq D, the son of Osorkon II, held office until the 28th year of Shoshenq III or 55 years after Osorkon's death. Again, a reduction of over 30 years is in order. Lastly, the successions of the prophets of the 22nd Dynasty have substantial gaps that also give support to an overlap.

The synchronism that establishes the exact overlap is found in the career of Takelot II's son, High Priest of Amun, (HPA) Prince Osorkon B. He held office for 54 years, a very long reign, but had an awkward 21-year hiatus in the middle. Suppose the reigns of Osorkon II and Takelot I are advanced exactly 40 years with respect to Shoshenq III and Petubates, then Shoshenq III would completely overlap Takelot II, who ruled 25 years, and would overlap Osorkon II by 15 years. Petubates of the 23rd Dynasty would overlap Osorkon II by 8 years. Prince Osorkon B made votive offerings in Thebes as HPA in years 11-14 and 24 of Takelot II. He also made votive offerings in years 22-29 and 39 of Shoshenq III. In my supposition, year 14 of Takelot II is the year 29 of Shoshenq III and year 22 of Petubates. In year 22, Petubates supported a revolt and installed Takelot E as HPA in Thebes. In year 15 of Takelot II, HPA Osorkon B failed to quash a revolt in Thebes and continued to fight a civil war for 10 years. During these 10 years his offerings ceased in both the reign of Takelot II and Shoshenq III. Reconciliation happened in year 24 of Takelot and year 39 of Shoshenq III, when the offerings of HPA Osorkon B recommenced. The proposed 40-year overlap of the reigns of the Osorkon and Petubates fits together exactly and eliminates the hiatus in Prince Osorkon's priesthood.

Table 1 shows the proposed dates under RC, Manetho and Kitchen for the 22nd Dynasty. The RC dates for Shoshenq III agree with Kitchen. The previous two pharaohs overlap by 40 years and the two prior to them are reduced by 34 years. The total reduction for the Dynasty is 74 years.

Table 1: REVISED CHRONOLOGY OF THE LIBYAN PHARAOHS

 PHARAOHDYNASTY

22

 MANETHO(Africanus)

 YEARS(Kitchen)

 DATES(Kitchen)

 YEARS(Proposed)

 DATES(Proposed)

 Shoshenq I  21  21  945-925  21  871-851

 Osorkon I  15  35  924-890  15  850-836

 Takelot I  3 kings 25 year total

 15  889-875  1  835-835

 Osorkon II  24  874-851  24*  834-811

 Takelot II  13  25  850-826  25*  810-786

 Shoshenq III  Omitted  52  825-774  52*  825-774

 Pimay  Last 3 kingsTotal 42 years.

 6  773-768  6  773- 768

 Shoshenq V  37  767-731  37  767-731

 Osorkon IV  3  730-728  0  730

 Total  116  218    181**  

These reigns overlap by 40 years. **Net total = 181 - 40 =141

Libyan Cultural Links to the 18th Dynasty

Velikovsky proposed that the 22nd Dynasty was preceded by the 18th. He gave many evidences that suggest a close connection of the 18th and 22nd Dynasties [Velikovsky, 1980]. Chalices made in the latter part of the 18th Dynasty and in the early 22nd Libyan Dynasty appear to be made with the same craftsmanship and artistry. Egyptologists would have assigned the Libyan chalices to the

18th Dynasty were it not for the inscriptions of Shoshenq I [Velikovsky, 1980, p. 6]. Why are there no similar chalices known in the 19th, 20th or 21st Dynasties? Over 100 statuettes of the lion-goddess Sekhmet stand in the Temple of Mut in Karnak. They date according to the inscriptions to the time of Amenhotep II. Later, in the Libyan Dynasty, other statuettes in exactly the same style were added but inscribed by Shoshenq I. Again this makes sense, if the dynasties are consecutive. If not, why did no pharaoh inscribed a new statuette during the intervening 500 years [Velikovsky, 1980, p. 2]? Furthermore, Osorkon II celebrated a royal jubilee in his 22nd year by reading a jubilee text in the Temple of Amon. Kitchen states, "this very text is nothing more than a word-for-word copy of just such a text as occurs over the king carried in procession for a jubilee of Amenhotep III depicted at Soleb Temple." [Kitchen, 1986, p. 321]. Osorkon II is supposedly overlooked the many jubilee texts of the 19th Dynasty in favour of a 500-year-old text of the 18th Dynasty. Why did Osorkon II not use a more recent text?

18th Dynasty

At first the authorities in Thebes did not recognize Shoshenq's sovereignty but, in his second year, referred to him as the "Chief of the Ma". Finally, in year 5, they referred to him as pharaoh [Kitchen, 1986. p. 288]. As the last 18th Dynasty pharaoh, Ay, reigned 4 years, I will assume that Ay was recognized at Thebes in the first 4 years Shoshenq I. Table 2 shows the most commonly used Egyptian chronology for the Amarna period together with Grimal reign lengths for the pre-Amenhotep III period [Moran, 1992]. For comparison, the corresponding years from Gardiner [Gardiner, 1961, p 443] and Grimal [Grimal, 1992 p. 392-3] have been included.

Table 2: REVISED CHRONOLOGY (RC) 18th DYNASTY

 PHARAOH 18th, 22nd DYNASTY

 YEARSROHL+

GRIMAL

 DATESROHL+

GRIMAL

 CO-REX

 YEARS(GAR-

DINER)

 DATES(GAR-

DINER)

 YEARS (GRIMAL)

 DATES(GRIMAL)

 Ahmose I  19 1086 - 1068

   25 1091 -1067

 19 1096 - 1078

 Amenhotep I  27 1067 - 1041

   22 1066 -1045

 27 1077 - 1051

 Thutmose I  13 1040 - 1028

   4 1044 -1041

13  1050 - 1038

 Thutmose II  14 1027- 1014

   18 1040 -1023

 14  1037 -1024

 Thutmose III  54 1013 -

960   54

 1022 - 969

 54  1023 - 970

 Amenhotep II  24  959 - 936    23 968 - 946

 24  969 - 946

 Thutmose IV  11  935 - 925    8 945 - 938

 11  945 - 935

 Amenhotep III

 37  924 - 888    38 937 - 900

 38  934 - 897

 Akhenaten  17  898 - 882  11  17 899 - 883

 14  896 - 883

 Smenkaure  3  882 - 880  1  3 882 - 880

 2  882 - 881

 Tutankhamun  8  879 - 872    8 879 - 872

 9  880 - 872

 Ay  4  871 - 868  4  4 871 - 868

 4  871 - 868

 Shoshenq I  21  871 - 851    21 871 - 851

 21  871 - 851

In the Bible two major invasions from Egypt are recorded during the above years. The later occurred in the 15th year of King Asa in 952 (BID) [II Chronicles 14:10:13] as an invasion by Zerah the Ethiopian. Zerah the Ethiopian invaded Judah with a vast army of Ethiopians and Libyans He was routed at Mareshah in southern Judah and fled. Velikovsky identifies Amenhotep II as Zerah [Velikovsky, 1952, p. 205]. Amenhotep II led one invasion of Palestine in his 9th year. He fought a battle in southern Judah, at y-r-s-t, a day's journey beyond the border of Egypt and took insignificant booty [Wilson, 1969a, p. 245]. He immediately returned to Egypt. This was obviously a major defeat. According to Table 2 (column 3), the 9th year of Amenhotep II was 951. Only a one-year adjustment is needed to synchronize with BID.

The earlier invasion is recorded in the 5th year of Rehoboam 982 (BID) when Pharaoh 'Shishak' invaded Judah. Shishak defeated Rehoboam at Megiddo. Rehoboam escaped but later surrendered Jerusalem. Shishak took all the gold and silver from Solomon's Temple. Velikovsky identified Shishak as Thutmose III [Velikovsky, 1952, p. 143 ff]. In his 23rd year Thutmose III 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 most important city Kadesh (Line 1 of his list of conquered cities). In Hebrew Kadesh means the "Holy City" i.e. Jerusalem. He proudly displayed the tribute on his wall at Karnak, tribute with similar quantity and quality to the Temple treasure of King Solomon. No item in the tribute exalts any Canaanite deity such as Baal or Ashtara [Velikovsky, 1952, p.155-163]. To synchronize the invasion of Shishak with the campaign of Thutmose III in his 23rd year, his reign must be 1004-951. This requires a 10-year co-regency with his son less the one-year adjustment above. The coregency was between 1 and 11 years [Wilson, 1969a, p. 245 n. 1]. The RC dates synchronize the Egyptian invasions of the 18th Dynasty with the BIC.

The date of the Hyksos invasion of Egypt can be calculated as follows: Ahmose I reigned (column 3 in Table 2 less 9) 1077-59. Adding 515 years (average of 511 years Manetho (Josephus) and 518 years Manetho (Africanus)) for the Hyksos Dynasty brings us to 1592 +/- 4. This is the BID of the Exodus. Thus in the Revised Chronology (RC) the Exodus occurred at the time of the Hyksos invasion of Egypt.

Carbon-14

The Carbon-14 dating method has been applied to a limited number of 18th Dynasty materials. These results must be adjusted by data obtained from dendrochronological studies, the most popular of which has been the Suess curve. Recent studies that increased the sample size and refined the measurement of the background radiation published by Stuiver and Becker in 1993 [Stuiver & Becker, 1993, p. 60]. The results of applying the new curve to the known published data are evaluated in Table 3. The first observation is that the 1993 curve shows lower dates than the Suess curve by 80-200 years. Note, because the wood pieces are not always freshly cut and not necessarily close to the bark, they show systematic older dates than non-wood samples. This effect is even more

prominent with the charcoal pieces. Thus the radiocarbon results show a need to down date the 18th Dynasty by 250-400 years.

Table 3 - SUMMARY OF CARBON DATING IN THE 18th DYNASTY (Dates in BC)

 MATERIAL  LABEL RAW

RESULT in BC

 GAD SUESSCURVE

in BC

 1993CURVE

in BC

 DIFFERENCEGAD AND

1993 CURVE

 Charcoal  P-717  1161  1420  1470  1390  30

 Charcoal  P-718  1137  1380  1460   1352  28

 Wood  P-720  1031  1343   1310  1115  228

 Wood  P-726  1030  1343  1312  1115  228

 Wood  BM-511  1022  1430   1310  1115  315

 Nut  BM-512  960  1343   1210  1075 268

 Nut BM-642A

 899  1343   1075  1010 333

 Kernel-Palm Nut

 BM-642B

 846  1343  1125  970  373

The Second Intermediate Period

Several historical sources suggest a long duration for the Hyksos period. Josephus quotes Manetho that the Hyksos Dynasties lasted 511 years [Josephus, Against Apion I.14, 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]. These dynasties overlap. The Turin Canon lists the pharaohs from the 1st Dynasty to the 18th Dynasty. For the 13th Dynasty, the Turin Canon lists over 55 kings. It agrees closely to the 60 kings given in Africanus and Eusebius versions of Manetho. Only a dozen reigns of the 60 13th Dynasty pharaohs are legible, for a total of 75 years. The average of almost 7 years per reign projected over 60 pharaohs would yield about 420 years. The secular view allows only 115 years for the 13th Dynasty or 2 years per reign. Both the Turin Canon and Manetho agree that the conventional Hyksos rule is too short.

The archaeology of Shechem also points to a longer duration. In the book of 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 excavators of Shechem uncovered a large walled town that had been badly burned. Inside the walls they found a huge tower with walls 17 feet thick that had also been burned. The American excavator Wright thought they had found the tower of Baal Berith. "This structure some 21 m. long by 26 m. wide had walls circa 5.3 m. thick, the thickness of a city fortification; it must surely have been the temple of Baal Berith mentioned in the story of Abimelech." [Wright,Vol144, p. 9] But the ceramics at this level were MB, not the expected LB pottery. As a result of this chronological consideration the excavators abandoned this opinion and proposed another less suitable temple in the LB. Given an Exodus date of 1591, which is in MB IIB, the destruction of Shechem in 1292 BID, 300 years later, could still be in the MB era. Since no other temple of the same size and no other major conflagration were found in later strata, one must concede that Wright's initial identification is correct and that the strata at Shechem confirm that the Hyksos era lasted at least 300 years.

Conventionally, the 13th and 14th Dynasties are placed before the Hyksos 15th. This I believe needs correction. Manetho (Josephus) said of the Hyksos invasion, "There was a king...whose name was Timaus. Under him it came to pass, I know not how, that God was averse to us, and there came, after a surprising manner, men of ignoble birth (Hyksos)...and subdued our land by force, yet without hazarding a battle." Then they gained control of the governors of Egypt, burned the cities, razed the temples, abused the inhabitants, sold many into slavery, left garrisons in key locations and put both Upper and Lower Egypt under tribute [Josephus, Against Apion I.14, p.610]. The Turin Royal Canon says in the list of 13th Dynasty pharaohs that after the second king "-no king for 6 years." This is the only time in history where it is stated that no king reigned during a dynasty. Furthermore, in Goshen, a stone block of bearing the cartouche of Hetepibre, inscribed with the throne name "Amu, son of Saharnedjheryotef" was found together with stelae of Sobeknefru, the last pharaoh of the 12th Dynasty [Habachi, L.] (The Amus were the shepherds who lived in the desert next to Egypt and were ruled by shepherd kings or Hyksos). The fourth pharaoh of the dynasty, "Amenemhet V, the Amu" was also Hyksos. Egyptian literature shows they feared the Amu/Hyksos most and held them in contempt. To an Egyptian, an Amu name in a cartouche was a presumption that they would never tolerate. Only the conquest of Egypt by the Hyksos can explain these cartouches. Hyksos rule began with the 13th Dynasty. This can be seen at Tell el-Daba.

At Tell el-Daba, in biblical Goshen, excavations revealed that egyptianized Semites dwelt there during the 12th Dynasty. Unlike Egyptians, they attached their graves to their homes in Middle Bronze Levantine fashion. Pictures and sculptures show these Semites with peculiar mushroom style hairstyle. These I identify as the Israelites. From the 12th Dynasty Level d/2 (=Level H) to Level d/1 (=Level G) there was a significant change in the Semite population. First, at the entrances to the graves, the new people began to bury pairs of donkeys. The only known parallel is at Tell el-Ajjul, which was the centre of Hyksos influence in Palestine during the SIP. Tell el-Ajjul is usually identified with Sharuhen where Ahmose I besieged the Hyksos after he drove them out of Egypt. Second, there are no longer any images of people with mushroom hairstyle. Third, the pottery that had been imported from northern Canaan and the Levant ceased and pottery from southern Canaan (Tell el-Ajjul) replaced it. These changes show the changeover from the Israelites to the Hyksos happened at the Level d/2-d/1 boundary, which conventionally separates the 12th and 13th Dynasty [Bietak, 1996]. The Hyksos who occupied the Eastern delta as per Manetho crowned themselves pharaohs of the 13th Dynasty. Only afterward, did they begin their own 15th Dynasty at Avaris.

The Pharaoh of the Exodus In the Sinai the Israelites complained about the lack of meat. God sent them quail. Their gluttony produced a plague [Numbers 11:31-35]. They buried the dead at Kibroth Hattaavah or the "graves of craving". Niebuhr rediscovered these graves in 1761 AD at Serabit el-Khadem [Niebuhr, 1761]. Many other graves are situated nearby on Mt. Sarbal, which the Bedouins call "Turbet es Yahoud" or the "graves of the Jews". The translations of the inscriptions on the graves on the plateau of Serabit el-Khadem in both hieroglyphics and alphabetic scripts were published by Forster with photographs in 1862 [Forster, 1862]. The inscriptions use an old Yamharic script. They mention the dividing of the Red Sea, the drowning of the Egyptians and the plague caused by gluttony. They mention by name, Moses and Miriam. The inscriptions can be dated by a 12th Dynasty chapel. The cartouche of Amenemhat IV, the author's candidate for the pharaoh of the Exodus, is written within. The Exodus cannot be far from his reign. By Moses' birth, Pharaoh had turned against the Israelites [Ex 1:8]. At age 40 Moses murdered an Egyptian to protect an Israelite, fled to Midian for 40 years. Josephus records that sometime after the death of this pharaoh Moses asked his father-in-law for permission to return to Egypt. Thus this pharaoh and his successor ruled at least 40 years. In the latter part of the 12th Dynasty, prior to Amenemhat IV, Amenemhat III reigned 48 years. Moses could have been born under Senurset III, who ruled 38 years, fled to Midian under Amenemhat III

and returned to confront Amenemhat IV. All the pyramids and tombs of the 12th Dynasty are accounted for except those of Amenemhat IV and his sister Sobekhotep I.

When the Israelites departed, Egypt lost a prime source of cheap labour. This could only bring economic disaster. After the reign of Amenemhat IV and his sister Sobekhotep I, the Middle Kingdom went from riches to poverty. Egyptologists have no explanation for Egypt's sudden misfortune. Velikovsky proposed that the Egyptians, having lost all their slaves and their capacity to fend off the Hyksos, recorded this disaster in the Middle Kingdom papyrus called "Admonitions of Ipuwer". Its author complained 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 complained about barbarians and foreigners as though the country had been invaded. He wrote, "Nobody is planting crops" because they were not sure what will happen. Their crops were devastated, "Grain is perished on every side." The southernmost districts no longer paid taxes. The Nile strangely turned to blood so that "If one drinks it, one rejects it as human (blood) and thirsts for water." The similarities to the plagues of the Exodus are obvious. Gardiner dated the events of Ipuwer to the FIP but Wilson conceded that the language and orthography belong to the Middle Kingdom [Wilson, 1969b, p. 442]. Other scholars such as Van Seters and Velikovsky, however, have argued for an SIP date [Van Seters, 1966, pp.103-120], [Velikovsky, 1952, pp. 48-50]. The proposed RC/BIC chronology is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: REVISED CHRONOLOGY

 ERA  DYNASTY  GAD*  REVISED  ISRAELITES

 Middle Kingdom

 11th  2134-1991  1940-1800  Joseph

 Middle Kingdom

 12th  1991-1778  1800-1587  Joseph

 Middle Kingdom

 13th, 14th  1778-1646  1591-1077 Moses, Joshua,

Judges

 SIP-Hyksos  15th, 16th, 17th  1663-1540  1591-1077 Moses, Joshua,

Judges

 New Kingdom  18th, 21st  1552 945  1077 -868 United

Kingdom

 TIP-Libyan  22nd /23rd  945 - 727  871-730 Divided Kingdom

*GAD - Generally Accepted Dates

The Pharaoh of Joseph

When his family entered Egypt, he warned them not to mention that they were shepherds because the Egyptians loathed shepherds [Gen 46:33]. This warning tells us that Pharaoh was an Egyptian, not a Hyksos. When Joseph was brought before Pharaoh to interpret his dreams, Pharaoh made him Vizier, the second highest office in the land. Courville identified Joseph as Vizier Mentuhotep, the most powerful Vizier of the 12th Dynasty. Under Senurset I, his many impressive titles were: 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 the epithet, "Sustaining Alive the People", brings some deed of national salvation to mind. During the famine storage and distribution of grain was well planned. The inscription on the tomb of Ameni in the reign of Senurset I, of the 12th Dynasty, claims that in the time of famine, he distributed the food to both rich and poor without favouritism. This suggests that food had been stored in anticipation of a famine. Over 100 years later, in the reign of Senurset III, Mentuhotep's figure was defaced, so that his memory was dishonoured. Courville identified Senurset III as the pharaoh of oppression [Courville, 1977, Vol. 1, p.149].

Egypt's only king list, the Turin Canon, gives the 12th Dynasty 213 years. Sobeknofrure reigned the final 4 years, leaving 209 years until the death of Amenemhat IV. Adding 209 to 1591 BID yields 1800 for the dynasty's beginning. Jacob entered Egypt 215 years before the Exodus, or 1806 BID, during the 2nd year of the 7 years of poor crops. Thus, these years can be dated 1807 to 1801 RC. According to the Turin Canon, the 7 years before the 12th Dynasty were called the "7 empty years" [Grimal, p. 158]. The name of the Pharaoh at this time is omitted from the king list. The previous Pharaoh was Mentuhotep III who ruled 12 years. It would be this Pharaoh who made Joseph Vizier.

JERICHO

After 40 years in the Sinai, the Israelites under Joshua captured Jericho and burned it completely. Only the Middle Bronze (MB) Level IV at Jericho meets uniquely the requirements for Joshua's Jericho [Wood, 1990]. It 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, charred wheat in jars was found in unusual quantities - six bushels. Normally, grain would be consumed or carried off as booty. Except for a brief occupation in the Late Bronze II (LB), the city remained uninhabited until the beginning of the Iron Age II.

Among Group II artefacts of MB Jericho were Babylonian cylinder seals of the era of Hammurabi [Rohl, 1995, p309]. This proves that Jericho had established trade with Mesopotamia in the MB era. Although conventionally dated to 1750, a recently published chronology has advanced the dates of the First Babylonian Dynasty 100 years [Gasche et al, 1998]. Thus the Babylonian seals date to 1650. Achan stole gold, silver and a Babylonian robe from Jericho 1551 BID [Josh 7:21]. The mention of a Babylonian robe would not be unexpected.

After Joshua defeated Jabin, Canaanite King of Hazor, he burned Hazor and hamstrung its horses [Joshua 11:10]. Concerning Hazor, 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]. Thus this MB level Hazor was burned at the same time as MB IV Jericho. In a lower MB level At Hazor, a tablet in Old Babylonian was found that was addressed to King Ibni-Addu (Jabin in Hebrew). Thus, at least one king of that name ruled in Hazor in the Middle Bronze. Ibni-Addu was also found on a tablet with similar epigraphy in the palace at Mari, which, using Gasche's chronology dated to circa 1650.

If the Exodus occurred in the MB rather than in the LB, an overall comparison of the archaeology of the cities mentioned in the books of Joshua and Judges should be useful. In the MB these sites were walled and occupied. However, in the LB, many of these sites were unoccupied or unwalled, e.g. Gibeon [Bimson, Livingstone, 1987, p.46]. In the MB there is an influx of a new people with a deep religious feeling but in the LB the new people came from Syria. Bimson concluded that only

MB archaeology fully agrees with the biblical account of the Israelites under Joshua. All the revisionists except Aardsma adopt Bimson's view. Aardsma's puts the Conquest at the end of the Early Bronze. His case is totally dependent on the identification of et-Tell as Ai. This is no longer accepted [Bimson, J. Livingstone, 1987]. Furthermore, many cities recorded in Joshua's conquest did not exist in the Early Bronze [Wood, B., 1993].

Middle Bronze Jericho and secular dating

In 1908, Watzinger and Sellin, excavated ancient Jericho and found a city fortified by double walls and a sloping glacis that lasted until 1500. They concluded this was Joshua's Jericho. At the Late Bronze level, they found no walled city at Jericho. Garstang continued the excavation and found 18th Dynasty tombs he could date to 1400 BC. He concluded that Joshua's Jericho fell circa 1400. He invited Kenyon to confirm the date. Her study showed that Garstang's walls were Early Bronze, circa 2000, and the glacis was MB, long before the LB tombs. She dated fall of MB Jericho at 1580, after which, it was abandoned for 180 years. She based her dates on the absence of LB bichrome ware. Her own excavations confirmed her opinion, "...there is a complete gap (in the occupation of Jericho) both on the tell and in the tombs between 1580 and 1400." [Kenyon, p. 198]. Biblical conservatives were not pleased. 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 el-Daba, and Halpern [Bienkowski, 1990; Bietak, 1987, p54; Halpern, 1987]. The case against the conservative dating was well stated by Bartlett; "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].

Bruins and Vander Plicht recently have published radiocarbon data from Jericho [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, one obtains a composite interval of 1551-1535. The radiocarbon date for the fall of Jericho agrees with both the BIC and Kenyon's ceramic dates.

The Gap at Jericho

Joshua pronounced a curse on anyone who rebuilt its gates and walls [Joshua 6:26] and Jericho remained abandoned until the time of Hiel in the reign of Ahab [I Kings 16:34]. The BIDs are from 1551 to 929, Ahab's first year, or 622 years (535 GAD). This should be easy to find at Jericho. According to liberal thought there is no sign of occupation in the LB 13th century. Thus, there is no evidence of Joshua's attack at Jericho. This supports the view that the Bible is Jewish mythology but not history. In the conservative view, the Conquest happened at Jericho Level IV in 1405. After this it remained abandoned until Iron Age II. This is contradicted by Kenyon's findings that the Tell was abandoned from 1580 to 1400 and was occupied from 1400 to 1325 [Kenyon, 1979]. Aardsma's Early Bronze Exodus fares worse still. Either the Middle Bronze is the Jericho of Hiel, which is ridiculous or there was an MB occupied town at Jericho between Joshua and Hiel in contradiction to the Scripture. The Revisions do better. Rohl accepts MB IV Jericho as Joshua's. The 180-year gap is widened to 530 years by a down dating the 18th Dynasty by 350 years but he shortens the gap to

350 years by down dating MB IV 180 years to 1405. Velikovsky down dated the 18th Dynasty by 500 years to make the gap at Jericho 500 years in reasonable agreement with the required gap. The RC case is similar to Velikovsky except that the Conquest is earlier and the down dating of the 18th Dynasty is 472 years. This gap is from 1551 to 928 (1400 - 472) or 623 years as required. Clearly, the only two models to account for the gap at Jericho are the Velikovsky and RC. This validates Velikovsky and RC as the only chronological models that comply with Scripture.

Objections

One objection to this model is the lack of the mention of Israel in 18th Dynasty material. This is not a good objection. The control of Canaan by the Israelites may be reasonably inferred from the names of cities with the Semitic names that Thutmose III conquered: Beth Zur, Etam, Joseph-El and Jacob-El [Wilson, 1969a, p. 242]. These first two names are listed as Israelite clan leaders in biblical genealogies [I Chr 2:45; I Chr 4:3]. In fact, Beth Zur and Etam were cities fortified by Rehoboam [II Chr 11:6]. The spelling of place names in the list corresponds to their spelling in the time of David and Solomon [Vycichl, 1942]. The officers of the palace in 18th Dynasty Egypt had similar titles to those in David's day [De Vaux, 1939]. More evidence of Israelite occupation of Canaan exists at the temple of Soleb. An inscription from the time of Amenhotep III referred to "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. Egyptian reference to "Yahweh" as a divine name not only suggests that the Israelites had invaded Canaan but also firmly controlled it. The el-Amarna letters also confirm the presence of Israelite authority. In letters 74 and 290, the name "Beth Sulman" is mentioned in relation to a temple in Jerusalem [Velikovsky, 1978]. In el-Amarna letter (EA 256 line 18) the Israelite name "Yashuya" was used [Moran, 1992].

Would not the RC down dating of the 12th Dynasty of 190 years destroy the accepted synchronism with the First Dynasty of Babylon? Smith placed Hammurabi of the First Babylonian Dynasty at 1792-50 using the Assyrian king lists, ceramic evidence and data from astronomical tablets [Smith, 1940]. This is the so-called "Middle Chronology". The "Middle Chronology" is supported partially by Schaeffer who discovered Babylonian cylinder seals together with material found in tombs of the12th and 13th Dynasties in Ras Sharma, the ancient Ugarit. He observed that objects of the era of Hammurabi are "always found in strata more recent than those containing objects of the time of Senusret II, circa 1900 (GAD) and that they may even come after the level containing a sphinx of Amenemhet III, circa 1836-1790 (GAD) [Schaeffer]." But these dates have always been controversial.

The "High Chronology" places Hammurabi at 1856-1814. Evidence for this date comes from Platanus Crete, where ceramics that relate to early 12th Dynasty material were discovered at the Middle Minoan I Palace at Cnossus. "There comes from Tholos B at Platanus a Babylonian seal of haematite which is dated to the time of Hammurabi. ... The latest finds in this context consist of Middle Minoan I a/b pottery." (2000-1850 GAD) [Matz, 1973, p. 144]. The "Low Chronology" places Hammurabi at 1728-1686. Evidence for this date comes from the Assyrian king lists and the 15th century cylinder seals of the 1st Babylonian Dynasty found at Nuzi and Arrapha [Smith, p. 16]. A recent Babylonian ceramic chronology supports an Ultra low date for Hammurabi 1696-1654 [Gasche (et al), 1998]. They concluded "our examination of Babylonian and peripheral ceramic and archaeological contexts that postdate the collapse of the 1st Dynasty of Babylon indicates a chronological scheme much shorter than the Middle Chronology would best fit the available archaeological evidence [Gasche et al, 1998, p. 45]."

Woolley, who excavated Alalakh, had an excellent opportunity to resolve the issue. In Level VII, he found a letter of Yarim-Lim, a contemporary of Hammurabi, who appealed to an unknown pharaoh

to come to his aid. Woolley noted that this was 90 years after the close of the 12th Dynasty, the latest time a Syrian king might expect a serious military response from Egypt [Woolley, p. 389] If the letter was sent to Amenemhet III, the last powerful Pharaoh of the 12th Dynasty, it supports 130-year adjustment, i.e. the "High Chronology". Woolley also had difficulty aligning the post-Babylonian pottery in Levels VI and V. Specifically, "Union Jack" ware is found at Alalakh in Level VI, 50-100 years later than its counterpart in Hyksos strata in Palestine. This supports the "Middle Chronology" [Woolley, p. 389]. And still the Mesopotamian evidence, including the Assyrian king list, supported the "Low Chronology". There was no resolution.

The RC model accepts Gasche's Ultra low chronology for Mesopotamia, i.e. Hammurabi 1696-54. The Yarim-Lim letter now dates to circa 1660, which is in the reign of Senurset III, a powerful 12th Dynasty pharaoh. Furthermore, in the RC the Middle Minoan I a/b is dated 190 years later to 1810-1660, which aligns the Hammurabi type seal at Platanos. Since the RC advances the Hyksos 74 years, the Union Jack ware, 50-100 years too late at Alalakh according to Woolley, now aligns with Palestinian strata. Lastly, these relationships are confirmed by Tell el-Yehudiyah pottery from the late 12th Dynasty, 1600 BID. In Syria, similar pottery occurs everywhere in a context later than 1600 [Schaeffer, p.25-27]. Not only does the RC down dating not breach known synchronisms between Hammurabi and the Middle Kingdom, it resolves the tensions between divide the High, Middle and Low chronologies.

CONCLUSIONS PART 1

The Revised Model dates the Exodus to the MB era circa 1600 by several independent lines of secular data. The RC date of the Exodus agrees with the secular evidence of (1) the Middle Bronze archaeology of Tell el-Daba and Jericho, (2) the ceramic chronology at Jericho and (3) the carbon-14 results at Jericho. These results, in turn, are in total agreement with BIC. BIC is no longer just a theological chronology that agrees with secular evidences and chronology.

The Middle Bronze 12th Dynasty has all the necessary elements to qualify as that of the Israelite sojourn. Middle Bronze Canaan also has all the requirements for Joshua's Jericho. The longer chronologies of Judges of the early Christian era chronologists that dated the Exodus to the Middle Bronze are confirmed. The accepted conservative and liberal chronologies that place the Exodus in the Late Bronze are no longer tenable. Conservative placement of the Exodus leaves biblical archaeology without a credible evidence of Joshua's conquest of Canaan. Liberal placement of the Exodus results in no Conquest at all. Their view leads to confusion in the interpretation of the stratigraphy and to the conclusion there is no evidence to support the biblical account prior to Samaria.

The RC model proposes a 200-year advance of the Egyptian 12th Dynasty, a 74-year advance of the Hyksos and a 472-year down dating of the 18th Dynasty. Together with Gasche's new chronology, this aligns the ceramic and historical evidences from Syria and Mesopotamia. This is a remarkable result as only Egyptian/Hebrew evidences were used to construct the model. The independent agreement confirms the RC model including the deductions about the 13th Dynasty in relation to the Hyksos.

Both James and Rohl synchronize the invasion of 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]. Although they propose a good synchronism, their date 804 GAD is too late. Velikovsky dated the Libyans between the end of the el-Amarna era, circa 820, and the invasion of Ethiopian Emperor Piankh, circa 730. However, like the chronologies of James and Rohl, Velikovsky's 90-year chronology fails because it relies on Thiele's biblical chronology. The BIC, however, allows 53

more years for the Israelite "Divided Kingdom", which in turn allows a more reasonable 141 years for the Libyans.

Gasche's dates for the stele of the code of Hammurabi are circa 1660. This stele has been the object of great study because of its similarity to the Mosaic laws. The RC/BIC now puts Hammurabi's famous Code within 100 years of Moses as might be expected. Abraham, who entered Canaan 430 years before the giving of the Law by Moses [Gal 3:17] left Haran 2021 BID. This says that he lived prior to Ur III circa 2000 (Gasche). At this time Gutium (related to Elam) armies dominated Mesopotamia during unstable times. This could be the era of Chedarlaomer. This area needs more research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the steady encouragement of Tom Goss in bringing this research to fruition. I also credit Brad Sparks with the suggestion that Amenemhet IV was the pharaoh of the Exodus.

REFERENCES

Aardsma, G., A New approach to the chronology of biblical history from Abraham to Samuel, 1993, ICR, San Diego.

Bartlett, J., Jericho, 1982, Lutterworth Press, Guildford, Surrey, p. 96.

Bienkowski, P., Jericho was Destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age not the Late Bronze Age, 1990, Biblical Archaeological Review, Vol. 16, (1990), No. 5.

Bietak, M., Avaris: The Hyksos Capital, 1996, British Museum Press, London.

Bietak, M., Contra Bimson, Biblical Archaeological Review, Vol. 14, (1988), No. 4, p. 54.

Bimson, J.J. and Livingstone, D.P., Redating the Exodus, Biblical Archaeological Review, Vol. 13, No. 5, (1987), pp. 40-53,66.

Bimson, J.J., Redating the Exodus and Conquest, (2nd Ed.), 1981, The Almond Press, Sheffield.

Bruins, H.J. & Vander Plicht, J., The Exodus Enigma, Nature Vol. 382, (July, 1996), p. 213.

Courville, D., The Exodus and its Ramifications, Vol 1,1971, Challenge Books, Loma Linda.

De Vaux, R., Titres et Fonctionnaires Egyptiens a la Cour de David et de Salomon. Revue Biblique Vol. 48, (1939), no. 3.

Finkelstein, I.& Silberman, N.A., The Bible Unearthed, 2001, Simon & Schuster, New York, N.Y.

Forster, Rev. C., Sinai Photographed, 1862, Richard Bentley, London.

Gardiner, A., Egypt of the Pharaohs, 1961, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Gasche, H. Armstrong, J.A. Cole, S.W. and Gurzadyan, V.G. Dating the fall of Babylon: A reappraisal of second-millennium chronology, 1998, University of Ghent and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Grimal, N., A History of Ancient Egypt, 1992, Blackwell, Oxford.

Habachi, L. Khatana-Qantir: Importance, Annales du Service des Antiquities de l'Egypte, 52: 443-59

Halpern, B., Radical Exodus Redating Fatally Flawed, Biblical Archaeological Review, Vol. 13, (1987), No.6.

James, P. et al. Centuries in Darkness, 1993, Rutgers University Press, Brunswick, NJ.

Josephus, Against Apion. Josephus: Complete works. (Translated Whiston), 1960, Kregel Pub. Grand Rapids, MI.

Kenyon, K., Archaeology in the Holy Land, 1960, E. Binn, London, p. 198.

Kenyon, K., Palestine in the Middle Bronze, CAH (3rd Edition), 1973, Cambridge Press, Vol. II.1, p.100.

Kitchen, K., The Third Intermediate Period, 1986, Aris & Phillips, Warminster.

Matz, F., The Maturity of Minoan Civilization. CAH (3rd Ed.). , 1973, Cambridge Press. Cambridge. Vol. 2.1 p. 144.

Montgomery, A., Towards a Biblically Inerrant Chronology. Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, R. Walsh et al., Editors, 1998, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA., p. 395-406.

Moran, W., The el-Amarna Letters, 1992, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Niebuhr, H., Biblical Research, 1761, Vol. 1, pp. 113,114.

Petrie, F., The History of Egypt (4th Ed.), 1904, Books for Libraries Press, Freemont, NY Vol. 1, p. 201.

Redford, D. B., Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, 1992, Princeton University Press, NJ

Rohl, D., 1995. Pharaohs and Kings: a Biblical Quest, Crown Publishers, N.Y., N.Y.

Schaeffer, C. Ugaritica I p.18, (note 2 as cited by Smith in Alalakh and chronology.)

Smith, S. 1940. Alalakh and Chronology. Luzac and Company. London.

Stuiver, M., and Becker, B., High-precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale AD 1960 - 6000 AD, Radiocarbon, Vol. 35, (1993), No. 1, pp. 35-65.

Van Seters, J., The Hyksos, 1966, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Velikovsky, I., Ages in Chaos, 1952, Doubleday & Co., Garden City, N.Y.

Velikovsky, I., The Shulman Temple in Jerusalem, SIS Review, Vol. 6:1, (1978).

Velikovsky, I., Cultural Aspects of the Libyan and Ethiopian Dynasties, Kronos, Vol. 5, (1980), No 3, pp. 1-11.

Vycichl, V. 1942. Aegytische Ortsnamen in der Bibel, Zeitschrift for Aegyptische Sprache und

Altertumskunde, Vol. 76, pp. 79-93.

Wilson, J. A., The Asiatic Campaigning of Amenhotep II. ANET (3rd Ed.), Ed. J. Pritchard, 1969a, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., p. 245.

Wilson, J. A., The Admonitions of Ipuwer, ANET (3rd Ed.) Ed. J. Pritchard, 1969b, Princeton University Press, N.J., p. 441.

Wilson, J. A. The expulsion of the Hyksos. ANET (3rd Ed.) p. 233. Ed. J. Pritchard, 1969c, Princeton University Press, NJ

Wilson, J. A., List of Asiatic Countries under the Egyptian Empire, ANET(3rd Ed.), Ed. J. Pritchard, 1969d, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., p. 242.

Woolley, L. Alalakh - An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay. 1937-49, 1955, The Society of Antiquaries, London.

Wood, B. Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? , Biblical Archaeological Review, Vol. 16, (1990), No. 2, pp. 44-57.

Wood, B., 1993. One thousand years missing from biblical history? A review of a new theory. Bible and Spade, Vol. 6 No.4, p.97-114

Wright, E., The First Campaign at Tell Balatah, Bulletin of the American Society of Oriental Research, 1957, Vol. 144:9

Posted November 21, 2003

 

 

A CHRONOLOGICAL MODEL OF THE FIRST AND SECOND MILLENNIUMPart 2: REVISED CHRONOLOGY AND ASSYRIA

 

ALAN MONTGOMERY218 MCCURDY Dr.

KANATA, ONCANADA K2L 2L6

 

ABSTRACT

The Revised Chronology (RC) in Part 1 placed the end of the 12th Dynasty at 1591, the Second Intermediate Period from 1591 to 1076 BC, the 18th Dynasty from 1086 to 868 BC and the 22nd Dynasty from 871 to 730 BC. Historical and archaeological evidence is shown to validate this construction. Stratigraphy in the Mediterranean, which shows major chronological gaps in the Late Bronze/ Iron Age boundary, demonstrates a need to advance the date of the Late Bronze by 400 to 500 years. At Tell Brak evidence for a major down dating of Amarna related strata places it in the Late Assyrian. Further evidence to support the 18th Dynasty RC come from the variety of connections of the Amarna letters to the Late Assyrian period. The misdating of Amarna related artefacts to the Middle Kassite era produces a double the Kassite artefacts and a void of Late Babylonian ones - the so-called Mesopotamian "dark age". This "dark age" disappears when the Amarna related material is properly dated.

KEYWORDS: Amarna, Chronology, Exodus, Late Assyrian, Late Bronze, Iron Age, Velikovsky

INTRODUCTION

To take the Revised Chronology (RC) model (see Part 1) one step further, we need to understand how the archaeological and stratigraphic evidence fit the model. The Late Bronze Mycenaean pottery, found in strata in 18th Dynasty Egypt, is a major chronological marker for the entire Mediterranean region. What are the consequences of moving this pottery 400 years on the timeline in the new RC/BIC model? What happens to el-Amarna correspondents wrote the letters to the late 18th Dynasty pharaohs? What happens to the Late Bronze synchronisms with Mesopotamia? All dates are BC unless otherwise noted.

The Late Bronze Era and stratigraphy

Petrie discovered Mycenaean pottery in 18th and 19th Dynasty context. It was common before Petrie's discoveries to date the end of the Mycenaean period to 800 to allow continuity and even overlap with the Geometric period [James et al, p. 16]. Petrie developed a new scheme based on Egyptian chronology. Torr, a Greek archaeologist, strongly opposed it because the Late Bronze (LB) chronology had to be retarded 500 years, leaving an unwanted blank in Mediterranean strata and history. No people, buildings, texts, weapons or pottery filled this void [Torr, 1892]. James et al. gathered the archaeological evidence found since the great Petrie-Torr debate. Their analysis

showed that in Spain, Italy, Sicily, Greece, Troy, Cyprus, and Palestine strata still have systematic voids at the Late Bronze/Iron Age I boundary. The LB gaps are shown in Table 1.

James concluded that these voids were caused by poor Egyptian chronology [James et al, p. 320]. He proposed to move the LB and the New Kingdom forward by 250 years. However, the voids are closer to 350 to 500 years in most places in agreement with the RC/BIC model. This restores a smooth cultural change in the stratigraphic record and refills the Late Bronze gaps first created by Petrie. Thus, a 400-year shift in the dating of stratigraphy demanded by the RC/BIC model not only fails to cause any major stratigraphic problems but even resolves problems of the current system.

The Amarna letters were an Egyptian diplomatic archive, found at el-Amarna near the Akhenaten's capital, Akhetaten. Amarna correspondents include the Hittites, the Mitanni and the Israelites. These lived during the time of the Mycenaean Greeks whose pottery (found at Aketaten), art, sculptures and writing is a major stratigraphic marker of the Late Bronze. In the RC model all these people and their art, ivory and architecture must have coexisted with the 10th/9th century Late Assyrians.

Between Late Bronze and Iron Age Hittites in Anatolia, there is a 400-year void. Akurgal, a leading Anatolian archaeologist, stated the problem thus "...it is striking that not only no Phrygian (remains) but no cultural remains of any sort have been found which belong to the period 1200 - 800 BC [Akurgal, 1962, p. 124]." Although, initially, archaeologists had dated the Hittites to 1100 - 800 [James, 1993, p. 137-38] clay tablets from Hattusas revealed the historical correspondence between the Hittite kings and 19th Dynasty Egyptian pharaohs. The dates were revised to 1600 -1200 [James, p. 115-19]. This created a problem. In Syria, similar hieroglyphics and art were discovered, the so-called Syro-Hittites. These had to be dated from the 11th to the 7th century due to their association with Late Assyrian deposits [James, p. 122]. Thus, there were two Hittite histories but one Hittite culture. In the RC model this duplication is resolved by moving the Imperial Hittites down into Akurgal's void. The Imperial Hittites of the Late Bronze era become coeval with the Syro-Hittites of the Late Assyrian era and this resolves the problem.

Table 1: CHRONOLOGICAL GAPS AT THE LATE BRONZE/IRON AGE I BOUNDARY

 LOCATION  TYPE OF

EVIDENCE GAP IN YEARS  PAGE*

 Italy Late Apennine

Ceramics  300  33

 Sicily  LB/IA I Tombs  550  36

 Aeolian Islands  LB/IA I Pottery 500    40

 Malta  Pottery  600  41

 Sardinia  Soldiers' Armour  400-500  47

 Troy  Pottery  250-400  62-63

 Greek\Levant  Ivories  325  73

 Greek  Linear B/Earliest

Alphabet 400  82

 Greece/Cyprus  Bronzes  400  80

 Greek  Pottery  400  94,95

 Hittite  Art  350  123

 Anatolia  Artifacts  400  138

 Bogâzköy  Ceramics  300  139

 Palestine  Pottery  400  160

 Nubia  Tombs  200  216

*Page reference is to Centuries in Darkness [James et al., 1992]

 

Archaeologists found a wall, called Herald's Wall, at the Late Assyrian level of Carchemish. Hogarth noted the strong similarity of the art of Herald's Wall to the Imperial Hittite art at Hattusas. Woolley even argued for Late Bronze dates for Herald's Wall claiming the iconography was derived from 15th and 14th century Mitanni [James, 1993, p. 126]. Here Mitanni influence is found in Late Assyrian context as required by the RC. Furthermore, according to RC, the Mitanni still existed in circa 850 RC. In an inscription of Shoshenq I, 851 RC, the god, Amon-Re, reminds Shoshenq of the Mitannian army that was given into his hand [Breasted, 1906, sec. 722.] The conventional view must claim a 450-year anachronism [Wilson, 1969b, p. 263]. Similarly, Phase 2 of the Kapara Palace at Tell Halaf was dated to 808 GAD. Phase 1, prior to the occupation of the Late Assyrians, was dated to 900 GAD. The sculptures in this phrase reflect Mitannian and Mycenaean art circa 1300 GAD [James, 1993, p.274-75].

Mycenaean ivories and ceramics are associated with the 18th Dynasty and the Amarna pharaohs. Yet, ivories found at Delos in a deposit with Geometric pottery circa 800, were judged on stylistic grounds to be Mycenaean. Kantor wrote, "When details of the animals on Delos and Mycenaeanizing Megiddo plaques are compared with those of north Syrian ivories and the Tell Halaf orthostats the patterning is seen to be well nigh identical despite the passage of three centuries without any known links [Kantor, 1956]." Mycenaean ivories (similar to Late Assyrian ivories) are found in a 10th and 9th century deposits.

During the excavation of Samaria, ivories were found inscribed in Hebrew at the level of Ahab's palace, 929 - 908 (BIC). Hebrew letters on these ivories match those on the stele of the Moabite king Mesha who rebelled after the death of king Ahab [Velikovsky, 1952, p327-332; Crowfoot and Crowfoot, p. 2]. Excavators noticed that these ivories showed strong Egyptian influence not of the 21st or 22nd Dynasty but the 18th Dynasty, particularly the time of Tutankhamun [Crowfoot p.67]. To explain the similarity in the ivories it was proposed that in Israel there was a revival of 500-year old Egyptian art forms [Loud, 1939, p. 9]. This explanation must be regarded as strange since the Egyptian dynasties of the 9th century show no such revival of art forms. Similar ivories were found in Megiddo in the context of a large number of Egyptian scarabs of 18th Dynasty pharaohs and were dated to the 15th and 14th centuries. Thus Amarna period ivories are found in the 10th century in Israel i.e. Late Assyrian. There is not only no conflict between Amarna art, ivory and sculpture and Late Assyrian deposits but their coexistence matches perfectly.

Amarna Writers Identities

Velikovsky identified the 5 most important kings who wrote Amarna letters: Abdi-Ashirta, king of Damascus as Ben Hadad II, Aziru assassin and successor of Abdi-Ashirta as Hazael, Abdi-Hiba (Ebed Tov) king of Jerusalem as Jehosephat, Rib-Addi king of Sumur as Ahab and King Mesha, the Habiru, as King Mesh of Moab. He also identified two captains of King Abdi-Hiba: Addadani, a son of Zuchru and Iahzibada as the captains of Jehosephat: Adnah, son of Zichri and Jehozabad [Velikovsky, 1952, ff. 240; II Chr 17:14-19]. There is no space to debate the merits of these

identifications. I would only comment that Rib-Addi couldn't be Ahab for chronological reasons. He may be Jehoram, as Velikovsky himself admits [Velikovsky, 1952, p.256].

Tell Brak

At Tell Brak, Oates, the excavator discovered six strata overlying the Old Babylonian 1600 GAD. Level VI and VII contained Mitannian ware and was dated to the 16th century. Level V and IV were dated to the early 15th. Level III and II were dated to the 14th because of the presence of cuneiform tablets of Artashumara and Tushratta who were authors of Amarna letters. Level I was dated to the 13th century [Oates, xxx]. This conforms to the generally accepted dates and gives the superficial appearance of agreeing with the evidence. A closer examination shows serious discrepancies.

In Level V there is Greyware paralleled at Nuzi Level II destruction [Oates, p. 66] which Stein proposed as "late fourteenth century" [Stein, xxx, 1989]. Red-edged bowls paralleled at nearby al-Rimah in 14th century [Oates, p. 73]. Finally there are some frit-headed nails [Oates p. 240] with parallel processes used on pendants in a Middle Assyrian (MA) grave in Assur circa 14th/13th century [Haller, 1954, p.144, Taf 34: a,f]. In Level II, there is a Neo-Assyrian geometric pattern Bowl 3, [p. 29, 236] whose earliest parallel is found in 9th century. According to these chronological markers, Level V ought to be 14th century, Level IV and III ought to be 13th to 11th and Level II ought to be 9th century. If, instead of the GAD, one uses Gasche's more recent Mesopotamian chronology, then Level VI must be late 15th century also and Level V, even more certainly, must be 14th century. But, it is extremely unreasonable to ascribe all Levels V to II to the 14th century. Something is seriously wrong.

Now all these chronological markers are according to Assyrian chronology. According to the RC model, the Egyptian dates require a 5-century down dating. There should be unavoidable clashes between the GAD Egyptian markers {shown in curly brackets} and the Assyrian ones (shown in round brackets). In Level VI (15th), a century past the end of the MB era, is glazed pottery parallel to Alalakh Level VI {17/16th} i.e. MB II. In Level V (14th) ovoid shaped grooved travertine vases {19/16th} are found, at least 2 centuries after the end of the MB II era,. Oates mentions that the frit-nail technique is also known from the MB in Levant [Oates, p. 117]. In Level IV (13/12th), there is a sheet metal disk, which has parallels in the MB II at Tell Mardikh {17/16th} [Oates, p. 118 (Reference given [Matthiae, 1981, p 220-21])]. Also there is a glazed vessel [Oates, p.117] and small stone statuettes [p. 106] parallel to Alalakh V {16/15th} century in fill under a Level IV house. In Level II (10/9th) there are ivory, parallel to Alalakh IV, and texts of Late Mitanni Kings Artashumara and Tushratta {14th}. At the bottom of Level Ib (9th) is a Mycenaean LHIIIA stirrup jar {14th}, 5 centuries earlier than its imputed Assyrian date. There is a clear pattern of chronological error from the Level VI down to Level I that can only be explained by a major shifting of the Egyptian chronology downward to the Assyrian dates.

The language of the letters found at Tell Brak is Middle Babylonian. If the Assyrian chronological markers are accepted then the Middle Babylonian Amarna letters must be 9th and display the characteristics of Late Assyrian epigraphy. Soden, an Assyriologist, admits that Amarna letters from northern Syria display "astonishing" Assyriansms. [Soden, W. 1986. Sumer. Vol. 42 p. 106]." Nor are these Assyrianisms restricted to Northern Syria. Moran notes the same thing about the Jerusalem letters [Moran, 1975]. Furthermore, some Kassite texts in Babylonia are assigned to the Amarna period because of their Middle Babylonian epigraphy. Gadd, referring to these tablets of the 'Middle Kassite' period, says, "But the salutations which follow this (the introduction) show a characteristic increase of formality over those of the Hammurabi period (17th century). One official, writing to another, adds after his name 'your brother' and the phrase 'be it well with you',

which is ubiquitous in the "Amarna and Late Assyrian letters [Gadd, 1975, p.39]." (Italics added) These 'Middle Kassite' tablets have similar elements to the Late Assyrian letters because they, like the Amarna letters, belong to the 10th and 9th century. The Amarna letters themselves display style, idioms and Assyrianisms characteristic of the Late Assyrian period. Furthermore, these texts resemble Neo-Babylonian texts at Nippur, circa 755 - 612, Cole states "The terminology used to denote alliances in the letters from Nippur is remarkably similar to the language employed in the Aramaic texts ...in the letters of the el Amarna age [Cole, p. 27-8.].

Babylonia

The removal of the written material and seals from Late Babylonia (11th to 8th centuries) to Middle Kassite Babylonia (15th to 12th) causes a major archaeological problem. It appears that the Late Babylonians had no written records. This problem is referred to as the 'dark age' of Babylonia. Brinkman writes, "Babylonian history of the first quarter of the first millennium maybe characterized as a period of obscurity or 'dark age'. Little source material has survived from these turbulent times [Brinkman, 1982, p.282-313; James, 1993, p.279]." Brinkman's figure of 60 texts from Babylonian 'dark age' is reduced to an abysmally small number when one considers that the Luristan bronzes, representing half the texts. These were apparently found not in Babylon but in the Zagros Mountains. Cuneiform texts from other periods of Babylonian history number in the thousands.

Is it possible that post-Kassite kings used Kassite names? At Dur Kurigalzu there was found a palace in Level I, which by tablets could be dated to late Kassite kings, Kudur Enlil and Marduk-apli-iddina. The construction used a new technique that used bricks vertically placed as well as horizontally. A nearby temple also used this new technique but the inscription claimed its founder was King Kurigalzu. But no Kassite King Kurigalzu reigned so late in the dynasty [Oates, J. 1979. Babylon. p.98]. At Nippur, a boundary stone of Nebuchadnezzar I, a post-Kassite king, was located beneath a 'Kassite' pavement [Armstrong]. The pavement can hardly be both post-Kassite and Kassite at the same time.

The difficulty in distinguishing Middle Kassite from Late Babylonian artefacts is not restricted to written records. The Luristan Bronzes demonstrate the point. James states, "Some of the bronzes, principally daggers, bear the names of Babylonian kings who are dated by conventional Mesopotamian chronology to between 1132 and 944 BC." However, because of the Kassite influence in the decorations, French chronologist Claude Schaeffer ascribed the bulk of the Luristan bronzes to 1500 -1200 BC [James, 1993, p.287]. Artefacts, historically dated to the period of the 'dark age' of Mesopotamia, are transferred to the Kassite period because their art corresponds to the art in strata dated by Middle Babylonian texts with Kassite royal names. Nor is Schaeffer's evaluation secure. The Late Assyrian influence on the art of these Bronzes has led others, like Ghirshman, to date these to the 8th century [James, p. 288]. The Luristan Bronzes are, like the Amarna letters, Late Assyrian.

The stratigraphy is also affected. The correlated material from Elam, Sumer and the Gulf has been likewise reassigned to the 14th century. Thus, the 'dark age' is spread there too. The problem is exemplified at Qal'at near Bahrain [James, p. 283]. There the Kassite stratum of the 12th century, Level IV, lie directly underneath the Neo-Babylonian of the 8th century, Level V. Either the people moved or the stratum has been misidentified. The latter appears to be true. The strata contains elements associated to the Kassite era by its dating to Amarna age artefacts.

Thus the kings of post-Kassite Babylonian dynasties imitated Kassite culture and adopted Kassite names. This is not uncommon in ancient history. The Libyans after they had conquered Egypt

behaved just like Egyptian pharaohs. This has led to mistakenly dating the epigraphy, bronzes, art and cylinder seals to the Kassite era, leaving Babylonia with a "dark age". Once the artefacts similar to those of the Late Assyrian era are returned to 1st millennium Babylonian, the "dark" ages of Mesopotamia will disappear.

OBJECTIONS TO THE RC/BIC MODEL

Old El-Amarna Synchronisms with Mesopotamia

One objection to the proposed model is that Amarna period Burnaburiash, king of Karduniash and Assur-uballit, king of Assyria, are already identified as Burnaburiash II, a Kassite king, and Assur-uballit I, King of Assyrian, dates independently to the 14th century. Unfortunately, this synchronism is just coincidental and has hampered the uncovering of the true situation. The identification Of Burnaburiash as a Kassite has great difficulties. Amarna Burnaburiash, proclaimed himself to be a 'Great King', and claimed Assyrians were his subjects (Letter 9). Burnaburiash II, the Kassite king, never ruled over Assyria nor referred to himself as 'Great King'. The identification of Amarna Assur-uballit has equal difficulties. Assur-uballit's father (Amarna) was Assur-nadin-ahhe but no ancestor of King Assur-uballit I of Assyria was known by that name. Furthermore, Assuruballit's role as spoiler of Shuttarna II, the Mitanni King is doubtful. The Mitanni king forced his vassals to pay him tribute to give to an unnamed Assyrian king. . According to Roux "Without shooting an arrow, Assur-uballit I not only freed his country from the Mitanni domination but brought about the downfall of the kingdom to which his fathers had paid tribute" [Roux, G. p260]. History shows that Assur-uballit I was a vassal of the Hurrians who ruled Nuzi and Arraphka only a few miles from Ashur. His inscriptions never mentioned any tribute from Khanigalbat, nor did he use the title 'Great King' or 'King of the Universe' as his Amarna namesake did. Gadd has to admit that it is strange history to receive rewards for rebellion -"the wealth, the princes and even the territory of his former sovereign" - instead of punishment [Gadd, 1975, p. 27].

Who, then, is Burnaburiash? The Burnaburiash of the el-Amarna letters ruled Babylon sometime in 910-880 RC. When Babylonian king, Nabu-apla-iddina, died about 910 BIC, his son, Marduk-zakir-shumi, ascended the throne. His brother Marduk-Bel-usate rebelled against him and he was forced to call on Shalmaneser III to help him. Shalmaneser defeated Marduk-Bel-usate and then "joined Babylonia and Assyria together". Thus, Shalmaneser III was the king of Babylon during the Amarna era. This agrees with Velikovsky's identification [Velikovsky, 1952]. Many kings who conquered foreign lands took another name. It is possible that Shalmaneser took the name Burnaburiash as king of Babylon. Shalmaneser III also took the titles 'Great King', 'King of the Universe' [Oppenheim, 1969a, p.233]. Thus he meets the conditions necessary for the Amarna king, Burnaburiash.

A seal of Kidin-Marduk, son of Sa-ilima-damqa, 'the Great Official of Burnaburiash', the 'King of All', was found in Mycenaean strata at Thebes Greece [Bacon, 1971, p.87]. This stratum is Mycenaean. Its Burnaburiash belongs to the Amarna era and per RC must be Shalmaneser III. Archaeologists found lapis lazuli and agate cylinder seals in the same strata [Platon, N. 1964. p.859-61]. The seals were classified as Mycenaean, Kassite/Babylonian of the 14th century and older Babylonian. One was classified as Mitannian and another was Syro-Hittite. According to the RC model, the Mitannian, Syro-Hittite and Mycenaean era is the 10th and 9th century but the Kassite and older Babylonian seals are dated to the 14th and 15th century. But, Sa-ilima-damqa is a very rare name. It is found in Assyria during only one reign, that of Assurnasirpal. He is the eponym for year 880 GAD. His son Kidin-Marduk is the same generation as Shalmaneser III. Thus, the Kassite and older Babylonian seals are not a product of 14th century Babylon but the 9th century.

In Shalmaneser's 6th year, he faced a coalition of forces headed by a commander named Biridri. The coalition included Aduni and Matinu-Baal and the Prince of Asu [Oppenheim, 1969a]. Velikovsky identifies Biridia in the Amarna period as the Commandant of Meggido. He notes a King Aduni mentioned in Letter 75; a Mut-Baal sender of Letter 255; and in Letter 150, Abimilki, King of Tyre, mentions Uzu [Velikovsky, 1952, pp. 310-11]. Hittite King, Suppilulimas I wrote a congratulatory letter to Pharaoh Tutankhamun who could be Saplel, King of Hattina, mentioned in Shalmaneser's annals [Oppenheim, 1969b] These Syrian rulers appear both in the Amarna letters and the 9th century annals of Shalmaneser III. Lastly, in Letter 55 to Akhenaten, Abimilki, king of Tyre, refers to himself three times as the "servant of Shalmatiata". The fall of Tyre to Shalmaneser in year 18, 897 BIC, agrees with the date of the Letter 155 in the reign of Akhenaten is 898-882 RC.

Burnaburiash's Amarna (Letter 9) complained of Egypt's reception of the Assyrian king because he had asked Egypt to stop trade with him in a prior letter [Oppenheim, 1967, p. 116]. Burnaburiash's claim that Assyrians were his subjects and his objection to Egypt's recognition of the Assyrians are consistent only if Assyria was in revolt against him at that time. It was led initially by Assur-danin-apli, son of Shalmaneser. Shalmaneser was forced to seek refuge in Babylon. After his death, his son, Shamsi-Adad V, fought for several years to quell the rebellion. During that time, a non-canonical Assur-uballit could have claimed the throne of Assyria, as 'King of All'.

Dynastic Order

The most obvious objection to the proposed model is that the conventional order is supported by Manetho, several genealogies and several king lists. According to Hoffmeier, "a true king-list arranges names in proper historical order and provides the length of the reign. Following this definition, the only Egyptian source that meets these requirements is the Turin Canon." [Hoffmeier, 1997]. The Turin Canon contains the most exhaustive list of kings from the 1st Dynasty to the 18th Dynasty. It does not, however, cover the dynasties in dispute. The Abydos and Sakkara king lists end in the 19th Dynasty. Unlike the Turin Canon, the Abydos and Sakkara king lists are not complete lists. They omit the kings of the FIP, SIP, Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun, and Ay. The selective omission of kings and entire dynasties indicates that the authors wished to hide embarrassing kings and eras of foreign domination. It is then possible that the 19th Dynasty may have wanted to omit the Libyan Dynasty also for the same reason. The king lists are not helpful in verifying the Manetho's dynastic order.

Manetho is supported by the Berlin genealogy. The Berlin genealogy lists almost 50 High Priests of Ptah from the Middle Kingdom to Third Intermediate Period. Some panels show the reign of the pharaoh in which the priest was inaugurated. Unfortunately, this genealogy claims that every High Priest was a son of the previous High Priest. Since we know that the Libyan pharaohs gave the appointment of the High Priest of Ptah to a new family in the middle of their dynasty this cannot be true. Thus, the Berlin genealogy is not a true genealogy. It has some other purpose and this fact limits its credibility for chronology and dynastic order. In the RC model, it belongs to the Greek period. During the Greek period there was nationalistic contention for the honour of the most ancient civilization. This may have been one instance of a chauvinistic claim. Manetho may have used the Berlin genealogy to order his dynastic history so that they may not be independent sources. Manetho must stand or fall with the archaeological and historic evidences.

Horemhab is supposedly the link between the 18th and 19th Dynasties. Velikovsky places him at the end of the Ethiopian era in league with an Assyrian king who appears on his tomb in Memphis, complete with translator [Velikovsky, 1979]. He destroyed or reused much of the material from Akhenaten and Tutankhamun but this does not mean that he did so immediately after their reigns. His cartouche appears on the tomb of a Shoshenq, "Crowned Prince, Chief Priest of Memphis, Son

of King Osorkon, Lord of the Two Lands (pharaoh)", which was excavated in Saqqara by Badawi [Badawi, 1956]. He identified this Osorkon as Osorkon II but his identification would appear to be mistaken. Osorkon's cartouche does not contain the phrase "si-Bast" that usually adjoins the cartouche of Osorkon II nor does it contain "si-Ese" that usually adjoins the cartouche of Osorkon III. The wealth of the tomb would suggest Osorkon IV. Horemhab's cartouche is carved on the architrave, written on his shoulder with no attempt to erase it. Also, a picture on an outside wall shows a king performing a ritual dance. A cartouche of Seti-Merenptah, also of the 19th Dynasty, is still recognizable on the water flask in his right hand. Badawi assumed that these blocks had been reused from the 19th Dynasty tombs nearby [Badawi, p.160] but the Libyans would hardly have used a block with the image of Horemhab as an architrave. Thus Shoshenq, son of the last 22nd Dynasty pharaoh survived into the post-Libyan period. Horemhab was likely the pharaoh at the time of his death. Thus the 19th Dynasty did not succeed the 18th but rather the 25th.

Nor is the 19th Dynasty connection to the 20th Dynasty secure. The last two pharaohs of the 19th Dynasty in the conventional view were Amenmesse and a woman, Twosre. Setnakht of the 20th Dynasty succeeded her. After Setnakht's death, tomb workers in the Valley of the Kings began tunnelling into the rock to prepare his tomb. Accidentally, they broke into the tomb of Amenmesse [Grimal, 1992, p. 271]. The tomb workers' failure to know the position of Amenmesse 's tomb suggests that Setnakht's tomb workers were of a later generation. The Harris Papyrus confirms this inference. It was written at the end of the reign of Ramses III, son of Setnakht. He alluded to a time when every man had lost his rights. He praised Setnakht for restoring Egypt from the rule of a Syrian named Arsa. The conventional view knows of no foreign rulers at this time.

Velikovsky demonstrated that both 21st and 20th dynasties belonged to the Persian era [Velikovsky, 1977]. To his evidence I add the following. In Saqqara, archaeologists stumbled onto galleries of the Saite/Persian era [Bacon, 1971, p. 233]. Papyri of 5th -3rd century were found, together with a blue glass bearded cobra with a cartouche of Ramses X and furniture with a cartouche of Ramses IX, both of the 20th Dynasty. Are these heirlooms of obscure 11th century pharaohs or contemporary with papyri of the Persian era? Petrie, dated so-called false amphora vases at Nebesheh, a Greek military outpost established after Psammeticus in the 7th century. Torr challenged that these vases could belong to both the 12th/11th century of Dynasties 20 and 21 and the 7th of Dynasty 26. He stated, "In the first place, he (Petrie) ignores the fact that false-necked vases are represented in the tomb of Ramessu III, and must therefore, have been in use within about two centuries of the date when this particular vase (with an inscription of King Pinudjem of 21st Dynasty) was buried." [Torr, 1892, p. 270].

The 21st Dynasty is supposedly linked to the 22nd by a marriage. A statuette was found upon which was inscribed by a High Priest of Amon named Shoshenq Meryamun [Breasted, 1906]. He claimed to be the son of King Meryamun Osorkon and Maatkare, the daughter of King Pasibkenno. Conventionally, these are identified as Osorkon I of the 22nd Dynasty and Psusennes II, the last pharaoh of the 21st Dynasty. However, the High Priest Shoshenq could be the son of King Osorkon "The Elder" and Maatkare, daughter of Psusennes I, both of the 21st Dynasty. Furthermore, this Shoshenq could be identified as Heqakhepere Shoshenq II, who is buried in the 21st Dynasty tomb of King Psusennes in Tanis. The statuette does not securely connect the 21st to the Libyan Dynasty. Thus the 20th Dynasty's connection to the 22nd Dynasty must also be spurious.

Carbon-14 test also place the 20th Dynasty in the Persian era. Nakht, was a 20th Dynasty weaver in the funeral chapel of king User-Khau-Re, whose prenomen was Setnakht. An autopsy of the mummy was done in 1977 at the Royal Ontario Museum [Millet et al,]. A piece of the mummy wrappings from Nakht was sent to Dalhousie University for carbon-14 testing. In 1980, it was

reported that DAL-350 registered a carbon-14 date of 345 bc which, when adjusted by the above curve, yields 390 BC.

Stratigraphy

The most significant objection to the proposed model is the stratigraphic evidence of the 19th Dynasty. According to the conventional view the Amarna period is LBIIA. It was followed by the LBIIB. The tombs of the 19th Dynasty typically contain 13th century LBIIB pottery, contrary to the expectation of the RC/BIC model.

Velikovsky supported this position with stratigraphic evidence from three locations, Tahpanhes, Lachish and Byblos [Velikovsky, 1978]. Psammetichus (663 - 610 GAD) granted Tahpanhes to his Greek and Carian mercenaries to dwell in. It was inhabited until the time of Amasis (569 -525). Petrie found much material from the 26th Dynasty there but none from the 20th to 25th. He also found a temple of Ramses II. At Lachish excavators found a temple founded by Amenhotep III that continued in use until the 19th Dynasty. It contained Israelite pottery of the 7th century. The stratum of the time Nebuchadnezzar, circa 590, contained the scarabs of Ramses II of the 13th century. The coincidence that 13th century strata contained 7th century pottery and 7th century strata contained 13th century scarabs was never explained. The city suffered two major conflagrations one during Ramses's and another during Nebuchadnezzar's era. At Byblos, the king Ahiram was buried in a coffin made by his son. His son's inscription was in Phoenician 8th or 7th century script as was the imported Cypriote pottery but the broken Egyptian vases and the coffin in the tomb came from the time of Ramses II. The LBIIB pottery associated with Ramses II is always associated with 7th century pottery.

James in his analyses examined Mycenaean sites. They all had voids and debates associated with them. The application of James's method to 19th Dynasty Asian sites reveals consistent 600-year voids in the stratigraphic record. For example, Seti I and Ramses II both mentioned the capture of Qatna in their wars against the Hittites. Pfeiffer says that after they withdrew from Syria about "1200, the site lay vacant for over half a millennium until it experienced a brief revival in the first half of the sixth century, " [Pfeiffer, 1966. p. 469]. Ugarit was a port city on the Syrian coast opposite Cyprus and was under the rule of Egypt in the Middle Kingdom as well as the New Kingdom. Curtis states its post-19th Dynasty obscurity in these words, "Although the history of Ugarit really comes to an end in the twelfth century, In the seventh and sixth centuries the highest point in the Tell was inhabited, as is shown by the remains of buildings and a small cemetery of sarcophagi made of large stone slabs, which contain iron spears, bronze brooches and alabaster flasks [Curtis, 1985, p. 48]. There were no significant artefacts in between. Byblos was Egypt's primary client state in Asia. Besides tomb of King Ahiram (see above) Dunand found many steles that commemorated Ramses's II victories in Syria. His assistant, Jedijian, would write this observation, "The results of excavations at Byblos have shown a curious fact which has been a source of discussion among scholars. In the excavated area at Byblos there is a complete absence of stratified levels of the Iron Age, that is the period of 1200-600 BC." [Jedijian, 1986, p. 57]. During this period, Byblos was supposedly a thriving commercial centre. Ramses and Hattusilis III fought in the area of Alalakh. Smith in describing the art of that era at Alalakh noted, "The lions belong to the earliest stage of the type that lasted in Syria for six centuries and closely resemble those, which guard the tomb of Ahiram of Byblos [Smith, S. 1946. p. 46]. The sculpture of Alalakh exposes a 600-year anomaly. In each cases LBIIB pottery is followed by 7th or 6th century strata.

CONCLUSIONS

The conventional views of the Amarna identities are dubious and stem from historical coincidences

of names 400 to 500 years earlier. The real identities of the Amarna correspondence are to be found in the 10th and 9th century rulers. Mitanni, Syrian, Hittite and Mycenaean art, ivory and sculpture from the Amarna period are found in the Late Assyrian, which the conventional chronology can only handle by creating stratigraphic gaps. The RC/BIC returns the Late Bronze /Mycenaean period to where the classical archaeologists first placed it - circa 1200 - 800. This fully restores continuity.

Furthermore, all lesser down dating schemes experience severe problems. James's identifies the Torr/Petrie debate as the root of the Late Bronze/Iron Age problems but he has not restored the smooth stratigraphic and cultural change in the archaeological record [James, 1991, xxi; p. 16]. His Amarna period is moved only 250 years - 200 years short of the Late Assyrian kings who alone could have pressured the Mitanni from the East. He has no convincing correlations in the Amarna era. Lastly, he places the invasions of Seti I and Ramses II, who set up stelae and left a substantial garrison in Beth Shan, in the era of King David. Such an occupation is incongruous with the biblical record. Rohl's 350-year down dating do not resolve the problem. He equates Ramses II with Shishak. This moves Seti's invasion into the reign of Solomon. Neither do these schemes fit the gap at Jericho nor the requirements of the artefacts at Tell Brak. Lastly, they have no convincing identities for Burnaburiash nor Assur-uballit of the Amarna letters.

Table 2 summarizes the problems by region showing both the GAD and RC/BIC dates. A full vacuum 'dark age' has been created in the Mediterranean by consecutive strata dated by artefacts that by Egyptian chronology are 450 years apart. This creates a total lack of history or archaeological artefacts for those 450 years. These strata are consecutive in the RC/BIC. In Anatolia a repetition of the art and sculpture of the 'Hattusas' Hittites is seen in the works of the Syro-Hittites, 500 years later. In Palestine ivories and scarabs of the 18th Dynasty caused the experts to believe that the Israelites had become enamoured with 450-year-old relics. Strangely, this revival did not take place in Egypt. The RC/BIC model resolves these many chronological problems.

Table 2: PROBLEMS CAUSED BY THE EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY

 PROBLEM  PROVINCE  DATES  DESCRIPTION  EXAMPLE

 Full Vacuum'Dark age'

 Mediterranean  1200/750

 Greek Mycenaean

ceramics of 1200 followed by

Greek Iron Age ceramics of 750

 Troy, Mycena

 Repetition  Anatolia  1200/750

 Imperial Hittite artefacts 14th - 13th century

repeated in style, motifs in the 10th - 9th century of

Syro-Hittite states

 Hattusas

 Revival of heirlooms

 Palestine  1450/880

 18th Dynasty material found in layers relating to

Divided Kingdom.

 Samaria

 Partial Vacuum'Dark age'

 Babylonia, Elam, Ur,

 1400/850  Babylonian has history from

 Nippur

Arabia

Assyrian records but lacks any

ceramics, art and tablets in situ.

Tablets with Late Assyria style of address assigned to (Amarna) Late

Bronze GAD

The 'dark age' of Mesopotamia can be resolved by understanding that the Late Bronze elements in Mesopotamia are first millennium. The Luristan Bronzes, Middle Kassite art, Kassite administrative tablets with forms of address similar to Late Assyrian period should be redated to the 10th to 8th century. The corresponding Kassite, Mitanni and Hittite cylinder seals and pottery must also be restored. Once restored, these will be sufficient to eliminate the 'dark age' of Mesopotamia. It is very important to understand that the argument used above is based solely on Mesopotamian artefacts, history and tablets and comparisons to their Late Assyrian counterparts. It is a line of reasoning independent of the any Egyptian evidence presented in support of Velikovsky's scheme and thus is an independent confirmation of it.

REFERENCES

Albright, W.F. The Ostraca of Samaria, Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Revised), Ed., J. Pritchard,1969, Princeton University Press, N.J., p. 321

Armstrong, J.A., The Archaeology of Nippur from the Decline of the Kassite Kingdom, Ph.D. Thesis, 1989, University of Chicago.

Akurgal, E., The Art of the Hittites, 1962, London, Thames and Hudson.

Badawi, A., Das Grab des Kronenprinzen Scheschonk, Sohnes Osorkon II und Hohenpriester von Memphis, Annales du Service des Antiquités, Vol. 54, (1956), p. 159ff.

Bacon, E., Archaeology: Discoveries in the 1960's, 1971, Praeger Publishers, New York.

Breasted, J., Ancient Records of Egypt. 1906, Vol. IV, Russell & Russell, N.Y.

Brinkman, J.A., Babylonia 1000-748, Cambridge Ancient History III:1, 1982, Vol. III:1, pp. 282-313.

Cole, S., Nippur in Late Assyrian Times, 755-612 BC, State Archives of Assyria, Study IV, 1996, Helsinki, p. 27-8

Crowfoot, G. Crowfoot, J., Early Ivories of Samaria, 1938, Palestinian Exploration Fund. London. p. 2

Curtis, A., Cities of the Biblical World: Ugarit, 1985, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, p. 48.

Gadd, J., Assyria and Babylonia 1370-1300 BC, Cambridge Ancient History. II:2, 1975, Cambridge University, Cambridge.

Gasche, H., Armstrong, J.A., Cole, S.W. and Gurzadyan, V.G., Dating the fall of Babylon: A Reappraisal of Second-millennium Chronology, 1998, University of Ghent and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Grimal, N., A History of Ancient Egypt, 1992, Blackwell, Oxford, p. 271.

Hoffmeier, James K., King Lists, The Context of Scripture, W. Hallo and K. Younger,Jr. Editors, 1997, Leiden, N.Y., N.Y. , p. 68.

Herodotus. The Histories (Trans. Aubrey de Selincourt). Penguin Books. Harmondsworth.

James, P., et al., Centuries in Darkness, 1993, Rutgers University Press, Brunswick, N.J.

Jedijian, N., Byblos through the Ages, 1986, Beirut. Dar el-Machreq. p.57

Kantor, H., Syro-Palestinian Ivories. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15 (1956), p 153-174.

Loud, G., The Megiddo Ivories, 1939, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 9.

Mazar, A., Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000 - 586 BC. , 1990, Doubleday. New York.

Mercer, S.A.B., The Tell El Amarna tablets, 1939, MacMillan, Toronto

Millet, N.B., et al, Autopsy of an Egyptian Mummy, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 117, (1977), No. 5, p. 461-476.

Montgomery, A., Towards a Biblically Inerrant Chronology, Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, R. Walsh et al., Editors, 1998, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA., p. 395-406.

Moran, W.L., Unity and Diversity, Goedicke et al., Editors, 1975, p. 154.

Oppenheim, L., Letters from Mesopotamia, 1967, University of Chicago Press. Ill. p. 116 .

Oppenheim, L., The Fight against the Aramean Coalition. ANET (Revised), 1969a, p. 233. Ed. J. Pritchard. Princeton University Press.

Oppenheim, L., Annalistic Report. ANET (Revised), 1969b, p. 277. Ed. J. Pritchard. Princeton University Press.

Pfeiffer, C., The Biblical World: A Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, 1966, Baker Books. Grand Rapids. p. 469.

Platon, N. & Stassinopoulou-Touloupa, E., Oriental Seals from the Palace of Cadmus: Unique Discoveries in Boeotian Thebes, Illustrated London News, (1964).

Puchstein, O., Pseudohethitsche Kunst, 1890, Berlin, p. 13.

Reisner, G.A.; Fisher, C.S. and Lyon, D.G., Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908-1910, 1924, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Rohl, D., Pharaohs and Kings: a Biblical Quest, 1995, Crown Publishers. N.Y.

Rowe, A., Topography and history of Beth-Shan, 1930, University Press, Philadelphia, p. 26.

Roux, G. Iraq.

Soden, W, Sumer, Vol. 42 (1986), p. 106.

Torr, C., Aegean pottery in Egypt, The Academy, Vol. 42, (1892), No. 1064. p. 270.

Velikovsky, I., Ages in Chaos, 1952, Doubleday & Co. Garden City, N.Y.

Velikovsky, I., Peoples of the Sea, 1977, Doubleday &Co., Garden City, N.Y.

Velikovsky, I., Ramses II and his Times, 1978, Doubleday &Co, Garden City, N.Y..Velikovsky, I., The Correct Placement of Horemhab in Egyptian History, Kronos, Vol. 4, (1979), No 3, pp. 2-22.

Wilson, J. A., Campaign of Shoshenq I, ANET (3rd Edition), Ed. J. Pritchard, 1969, Princeton University Press. N.J.

Young, R.S., Gordion: Preliminary Report, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 59 (1956), p. 12.

Posted November 21, 2003.