DCCC Apologetics Course II REDATING OF EGYPTIAN HISTORY TO FIT BIBLICAL HISTORY FROM 930 TO 525 B.C. lesson 22

image_pdfimage_print

 

INTRODUCTION

Previous lessons demonstrated that the history of Egypt’s dynasties 12 through 18 synchronizes harmoniously with Biblical history from Joseph to Solomon when Egyptian history is dated about three centuries later than conventional dates. Lesson 21 presented abundant synchronism between Bible history of the Divided Kingdom and Assyria’s astronomically dated history. This Lesson shows how dynasties 19 to 26 can be re-dated so as to produce unique synchronism with Bible history and Assyrian history from 930 to 525 B.C.

LESSON AIM:

To reconstruct Egyptian history so that it uniquely synchronizes with, and confirms, Biblical history from 930 to 525 B.C.

LESSON OBJECTIVES: You will:

  1. Visualize how the new date of 854 B.C. for Rameses II’s 52nd year creates unique

synchronism with Biblical and Assyrian histories.

  1. Observe how a three-century dark age in Hittite art is closed when Egypt’s chronology is re-dated by about three centuries later.
  2. Consider new evidence that proves Dynasties 19 to 26 reigned parallel to each at different times from different capitals.
  3. Examine solid reasons why Shoshenk I cannot be Pharaoh Shishak who attacked Jerusalem in the fifth year of King Rehoboam.
  4. Visualize unique historical synchronism with the Bible and other nations’ histories when Dynasty 22 is dated in the 8th century B.C.

 

NEW DATES FOR RAMESES II CREATES NEW SYNCHRONISM WITH BIBLICAL & ASSYRIAN HISTORIES

  1. Links Between Seti I and Elah, King of Israel
    1. Ted astronomically fixed 854 B.C. as the 52nd year of Rameses II. You can see his chronology of the 19th dynasty in Table 22-A.
    2. He dates the 1st year of Seti I in 922/21 B.C., which is the 10th year of Jeroboam, king of Israel. This date produces a unique synchronism with Biblical history.
    3. In his 1st year Seti I defeated the “Hapiru” (Hebrews) near Bethshean,[i] and wrote on a monument: “The wretched enemy in the city of Hamath holds the city of Bethshean by

treaty with Elah of Pehel.”[ii]

  1. Elah, the name recorded by Seti I, became king of N. Israel in 886 B.C. after his father Baasha established a new dynasty in 908 B.C. (1 Kings 15:27-16:14). Baasha and his son Elah were likely officials in Jeroboam’s government in 921 B.C. when Seti I invaded N. Israel.
  2. Elah was likely living in Pehel with authority over Bethshean when Seti I captured the city in 921 B.C.
  1. Genealogical Proof for Rameses II’s Reign from 906/05 to 838 B.C.
    1. Khnemibre, a royal architect, inscribed his genealogy of 22 former royal architects in the 26th year of Darius, a Persian king, dated to 496 B.C.[iii]
      1. The 22nd generation was Rahotep, the famous architect, who began his work about the 9th year of Rameses II dated by Krauss in 1270 B.C.
      2. Thus 22 architects were born after Rahotep between 1270 and 496 B.C., a total of 774 years, an average of 35.2 years per generation.
      3. Krauss’ chronology for 18th and 19th dynasty kings lists 19 kings for a total of 335 years, an average of 17.6 (18) years per king.
      4. The famous Egyptologist, K. A. Kitchen, uses as 20-year average.
      5. Multiplying 18 years by 22 architects, we get 396 years before 496 B.C., assigning 892 B.C. to Rahotep’s appointment by Rameses II in his 9th year.
    2. If Rameses II’s 9th year is 892 B.C., his 1st year should be c. 900 B.C., only 5 years off Ted’s fixed date 906/05 B.C.
    3. Thus Khnemibre’s genealogy contradicts scholars’ dates of Egyptian history by 379 years, but confirms Ted’s astronomical chronology within 5 years.
  2. Links Between Rameses II and the Reign of King Asa
    1. In Rameses II’s early reign, his scribe met the “Chief of Asher” when traveling through the pass of Aruna north of Megiddo[iv]
      1. The Aruna Pass runs between Megiddo and the territory assigned by Joshua to the Hebrew tribe of Asher in N. Israel.[v]
      2. The chief of the Hebrew tribe of Asher, in their Biblical location for Asher, harmonizes with Rameses II’s reign in the early divided kingdom of Israel and proves the Hebrews were there before Rameses II reigned.
    2. In 900 B.C., the 11th year of King Asa, Judah defeated Zerah the Cushite, who had an army of 1 million Cushite and Libyans soldiers. (2 Chronicles 14:1,8-15; 16:8).
      1. Ted’s new chronology assigns 900 B.C. to Rameses II’s 6th year of reign.
      2. In Rameses II’s 5th year (901 B.C.), he was defeated by Muwatallish, king of the Hittites.[vi] This defeat caused Palestine to rebel against Egypt in years 6 & 7. 322 However, year 6 is a blank in Rameses II’s records.
      3. In Year 6 (900 B.C.) Rameses II likely sent his Cushite general, Zerah, with only Cushite and Libyan troops to fight King Asa, while he let his Egyptian troops rest from. their defeat in Year 5. Historical records show Seti I and Rameses II had complete control over Libya and Cush (Nubia).[vii]
      4. The terrible failure of general Zerah was not recorded by Rameses II.
      5. In year 7, Rameses II led his Egyptian troops against the city of Ashkelon and besieged it many months before conquering it.[viii]
      6. In Year 8 Rameses II conquered the cities of Bethanath, Kerpet, Merem, Marom, and Sherem, all north of the Sea of Galilee.
    3. Links Between Rameses II and Shalmaneser III
      1. Shalmaneser III, an Assyrian King, is astronomically dated from 858 to 824 B.C. Ted’s new dates for Rameses II make him a contemporary of Shalmaneser III from 858 to 838 B.C.
      2. Dual monuments, constructed side by side out of the same material, obviously in the same time period, picture Rameses II on one side and Shalmaneser III on the other side.[ix] They were contemporaries.
      3. In 858 B.C. Shalmaneser III defeated Sapalulme, a Hittite king, [x]whose name fits the Assyrian spelling, Suppiluliumas II, the last king of the Hittite Empire. Scholars date him contemporary to the latter reign of Rameses II and Merneptah. [xi]See this chronology in Table 22-B.
      4. Scholars say Egypt’s alliance with the Hittites ended c. 1200 B.C. However, 2 Kings 7:6 says that the Hittites still had an alliance with Egypt in 842 B.C.: “Behold, the king of Israel has hired against us the kings of the Hittites and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us.”
      5. Thus, the alliance Rameses II had with the Hittites still existed in 842 B.C. because Rameses II was still reigning in 842 B.C.
      6. Thus, Egyptian, Assyrian, Hittite and Biblical records form unique synchronism when Rameses II’s reign is dated 374 years later from 906/5 to 840/39 B.C.
    4. Art of the 13/12th Century is Identical to Art of the 10th/8th Centuries
      1. A Hittite Storm God from Charchemish is dated by archaeologists to the 13th century is

dated by art historians to the 10th /9th  centuries.[xii]

  1. Hittite art of the 13th century suddenly reappears in the 9th  [xiii]
  2. 13th century sculpture work on a Lion Gate at Mycenae is duplicated in the 8th  century in

Phrygia.[xiv]

  1. A 13th century sun god in Anatolia, dated by Egyptian history, is identical to a 7th  century sun god at Charchemish which is dated by Assyrian history.[xv]
  2. Ivory figurine from 12th century Megiddo is identical to an ivory figurine from 8th  century Athens, dated by Greek history.[xvi]
  1. Uncalibrated Carbon-14 Dating of Rameses II’s Reign.
    1. A scholarly article entitled “C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology” assigns to Rameses II a date of 950 B.C. +/- 50 years, 329 years later than scholars’ dates for Rameses II, [xvii]but only 45 years earlier than Ted’s date of 906/5 B.C.
    2. Another scholarly article entitled “Radiocarbon Chronology for Egypt & N. America” lists various carbon-14 dates from 800 to 1,000 B.C., fitting Ted’s dates of 906/5 to 840/39 B.C., but 270 to 470 years later than Rameses II’s traditional dates.[xviii]
  2. Evidence of Merneptah’s Reign from 838 to 828 B.C.
    1. Rameses II’s son, Merneptah, reported in his 5th year (Ted’s date of 835 B.C.) that “Israel is laid waste; his seed is not; Hurru is become a widow for Egypt.”[xix]
    2. Hazael became king of Aram in 842 B.C. 2 Kings 10:32-33 says that “Hazael began to reduce the size of Israel” and “overpowered the Israelites . . . east of the Jordan in all the land of Gilead . . . to Bashan.” In 2 Kings 8:12 Elisha had previously predicted that Hazael would “set fire to Israel’s fortified places, kill their young men with the sword, dash their little children to the ground and rip open their pregnant women.”
    3. Merneptah did not say he had destroyed Israel, but that Israel “is laid waste,” in the passive voice, meaning that a third party (Hazael) had wasted Israel and made her “a widow” who needed Merneptah to marry her and protect her.
    4. Thus, Merneptah was the first Egyptian king to call N. Israel by the name of Israel and to refer to their devastated state in 835 B.C., not in 1220 B.C.
  3. Evidence That Dynasties 19 Through 26 Reigned Parallel to Each Other at Different Times from Different Capitals.
    1. Ted’s date for the end of dynasty 19 is 812 B.C. In order for the 26th dynasty to end in the astronomically fixed year of 525 B.C., which all scholars accept, dynasties 19 to 26 must reign parallel to each.
    2. These dynasties reigned parallel to each other. Key evidence – the burial of 26 Apis bull-gods during the reigns of named Pharaohs. See Table 22-C.
    3. Egyptians had a formal burial for the bull-god when it died. Twenty-three Apis bulls were buried at Sakkara, near Memphis, between Rameses II’s 30th year (19th dynasty) and Psamtek I’s 21st year (26th dynasty). Three more buried bulls were found without links to any Pharaoh.[xx]
    4. The average life span of a bull was about 20 years, but ceases to be procreative by 10-12 years.
    5. Egyptians considered the firstborn of animals as “gods” (Exodus 12:12).
      1. When the Apis god-bull was 8 to 12 years old, the priests likely bred him to a young heifer, to produce a firstborn bull-calf who replaced the god-father when he died. On this basis the average generation between the god-father and the god-son would be 8 to 12 years, not 18 years.
      2. The burial dates of the Apis bulls give evidence of a 10-year average in the reigns of a number of kings.[xxi] Five bulls between Rameses II’s 30th and 67th year, a period of only 37 years, divided by 4 gives a generation span of only 9.25 years. Three bulls died during Rameses XI’s 30-year reign, a likely average of 10 to 12 years per bull. Three bulls were buried consecutively in the specified years, 4, 14, and 24, of Taharka, precisely every 10 years.
      3. Scholars date Rameses II’s 30th year in 1249 B.C. The 21st year of Psamtek I is certainly 644 B.C., 605 years later.
      4. If Ted’s date of 876 B.C. for Rameses II’s 30th year is correct, then only 232 years intervened before Psamtek I’s 21st year in 644 B.C., a 9-year average between each bull burial, which confirms Ted’s chron-ology.
    6. The burial records show apparent irregularities that enabled me to arrange the dynasties in proper relation to each other. See Table 22-C.
      1. Burials 1 through 12 run from Rameses II’s 30th year in the 19th dynasty through Rameses XI’s latter reign in the 20th dynasty.
      2. However, between burials 12 and 13 are missing the entire 21st dynasty and the 1st three kings of the 22nd dynasty.
      3. Some burials in the 22nd dynasty occurred in impossible intervals of 54 years, 26 years and 22 years.
      4. These exaggerated intervals were reconciled when I realized that parallel dynasties filled in the gaps and prevented 21st dynasty kings from participating in the bull burials.
      5. Three burials of bulls not linked to any Pharaoh fit perfectly in the reigns of the first 2 kings of the 22nd dynasty, which was also parallel to dynasties 20 – 26. See Table 22-D.
    7. Important evidence proves Sheshonk I of the 22nd dynasty ruled before Siamun of the 21st dynasty.[xxii]
      1. All Egyptologists date Siamun of the 21st dynasty about 35 years before Shoshenk I of the 22nd dynasty. However, in the 11th year of Shoshenk I, the body of Djedptahefankh was deposited in a new tomb.
      2. In Siamun’s 10th year, the body of Seti I of the 19th dynasty was moved from his old tomb into the same tomb of Djedptahefankh. His coffin was so large that Seti’s coffin was placed in front of Djedptahefankh’s coffin because there was no room to go around it. Therefore, Seti’s coffin was deposited last, proving that Shoshenk I’s 11th year preceded Siamun’s 10th Year.
    8. Evidence also indicates that the death of Osorkon II of the 22nd Dynasty preceded the death of Psusennes I of the 21st Dynasty.[xxiii]
      1. The tomb of Osorkon II had to have been constructed before the tomb of Psusennes

I because the constructors of Pususennes’ tomb built his tomb into one of the corners of Osorkon II’s tomb.

  1. Yet, scholars date Osorkon II’s death 141 years after Psusennes I’s death.
  2. In reality, Dynasty 21 and 22 reigned parallel to each other so that Osorkon II died before Psusennes I died.
  1. Ted arranged Dynasties 19 to 26 parallel to each other. See Table 22-D.
  1. Biblical Evidence of Multiple Dynasties During the Latter Reign of the 19th Dynasty
    1. 2 Kings 7:6: Egypt had multiple dynasties in 842 B.C. – “Behold, the king of Israel has hired against us the kings of the Hittites and the kings of the Egyptians.”
    2. The Hebrew of 2 Kings 7:6 clearly states that a plurality of kings existed in Egypt as well as among the Hittites in 842 B.C.
    3. Conventional Egyptian history dates Takelot II of the 22nd dynasty as the sole king of Egypt in 842 B.C. in contradiction to 2 Kings 7:6.
    4. I date 843 B.C. in Rameses II’s 63rd year. Thus, 2 Kings 7:6 proves parallel dynasties existed in Rameses II’s later reign. See this in (Table 22-D).
  2. Evidence That Shoshenk I of Dynasty 22 Was Not Shishak
    1. 1 Kings 14:25 says that Shishak attacked Jerusalem in the 5th year of Rehoboam, son of Solomon, dated by Thiele to 926/925 B.C.[xxiv]
    2. Shoshenk I listed 29 Palestinian cities he conquered. Jerusalem is not on the list.[xxv]
    3. 2 Chronicles 11:5-10; 12:1-4 names 15 cities that Shishak captured. Aijalon is the only city that appears in both lists.
    4. 1 Kings 11:40 says Jeroboam fled from Solomon and went to Pharaoh Shishak for protection, making Jeroboam, king of N. Israel, an ally of Shishak. Thus, 1 Chronicles 12:1- 4 reports that Shishak attacked only the fortified cities of Judah, not cities of N. Israel. Yet, Shoshenk I attacked 23 cities in N. Israel where his ally, Jeroboam was supposedly reigning.
    5. For all of these reasons, Shoshenk I cannot be Pharaoh Shishak.
  3. Proof That Dynasty 22 Existed in the 8th Century.
    1. Scholars are agreed that Shoshenk I and his son Osorkon I were contemporary with certain kings of Byblos (Gubla). (See Table 22-E). Modern scholars date these 22nd dynasty kings and the rulers of Byblos between 945 and 874 B.C. Takelot I was contemporary with Shipitbaal from 889 to 874 B.C.
    2. Tiglath-Pileser III reported that Sibitti-bili, ruler of Byblos, paid tribute to him in his 3rd year, which is astronomically dated to 743 B.C.[xxvi] Sipbitti-billi’s name appears to be the same as Shipitbaal, the contemporary of Takelot I.
    3. This synchronism results in a new chronology for the 22nd Dynasty and reduces the chronology of this dynasty by 131 to 146 years. (See Tables 22-D and 22-E).
    4. The contents of these tombs also fit the 8th century B.C.
      1. The style of writing found in the tombs of these Byblos kings fits the 8th century.[xxvii]
      2. Cypriot pottery was also found in these same tombs of Byblos dated 850-700 B.C[xxviii].
    5. Genealogical evidence also indicates that Shoshenk I lived in the 8th, instead of the 10th century. Khnemibre, writing in 496 B.C., listed 22 former architects back to Rahotep, the royal architect of Rameses II.[xxix] Haremsaf, the 14th architect before Khnemibre, served Shoshenk I. Multiplying 14 architects by 20 years, we get about 280 years that separate the two architects, giving us 776 B.C., amazing confirmation for Ted’s dates for Shosh-enk I’s reign from 800 to 769 B.C.
    6. 2 Kings 17:4-10 says Hoshea, king of Israel, trusted in king So of Egypt, provoking Shalmaneser V, king of Assyria, to destroy Samaria and take N. Israel into captivity in 722 B.C. A statue of Osorkon II of the 22nd Dynasty, was found in the excavated palace in Samaria that Shalmaneser V destroyed.[xxx]
      1. Petrie lists Osorkon II’s throne name as So-Tepen-Ra,[xxxi] a name that begins with So, the prefix of Osorkon II’s throne name. As Tiglath-Pileser III’s name was reduced to Pul in 2 Kings 5:19, also So-Tepen-Ra was reduced to So in 2 Kings 17:4-6.
      2. Hoshea’ trust in king So in 722 B.C., fits perfectly my new chronology of Osorkon II (So-tepenra) from 729 to 715 B.C.
    7. Other archaeological evidence also dates the 22nd Dynasty in the 8th century B.C.
      1. A chalice of the early 22nd dynasty was found at Buseirah in Edom, a city constructed in the 8th century B.C., when Ted dates Osorkon II.[xxxii]
      2. Also, a scarab of Osorkon I or II was found in a tomb at Salamis, Cyprus, that is dated about 700 B.C.[xxxiii]
      3. Alabaster vases with Osorkon II’s name were found in tombs with two Greek vases that did not exist before 780 B.C.[xxxiv]
    8. Thus, abundant evidence confirms that Shoshenk I, Takelot I and Osorkon II reigned in the 8th century B.C., 145 years later than the dates of scholars.
  4. Future Research Will Produce New Synchronism.
    1. Ted’s arrangement of parallel dynasties from 19 to 26 is presently tentative.
    2. Ted devised this arrangement in the summer of 1996 after combining the research of Peter James’ Centuries of Darkness, and David Rohl’s Pharaohs and Kings. James shows how 3-century dark ages in 22 nations’ histories linked to Egypt disappear when Egyptian history is redated c. 3 centuries later.
    3. The chronology of Centuries in Darkness differs from Ted’s by about 120 years for dynasties 18 to 21, but only 25 years for dynasties 20 through 24.
    4. Rohl’s chronology fits Ted’s chronology in dating Akhenaten parallel to the reign of King David. Rohl identifies Rameses II as Pharaoh Shishak, whereas Ted identifies Horemheb (Zeserk) as Pharaoh Shishak, a difference of about 30 to 40 years.

NO SELF EXAM QUESTIONS FOR THIS LESSON

 

[i] R. O. Faulkner, Cambridge Ancient History, II.2.218-220.

[ii] Yohanan Aharoni, Macmillan Bible Atlas, p. 37.

[iii] David Rohl, Pharaohs & Kings, pp. 141-142.

[iv] Aharoni, op. cit., p. 39.

[v] Ibid. & Josh. 19:24-31

[vi] R. O. Faulkner, “Egypt: From the Inception of the 19th  Dynasty to the Death of Ramesses III, Cambridge Ancient History, II.2.226-228

[vii] Ibid., p. 224

[viii] R. O. Faulkner, “Egypt: From the Inception of the 19th  Dynasty to the Death of Ramesses

III, Cambridge Ancient History, II.2.226-228. p. 228

[ix] Pritchard, Ed., Ancient Near East In Pictures, p. 112, figure 335.

[x] Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria & Babylonian, p. 215.

[xi] Cambridge Ancient History, II.2.265

[xii] Peter James, Centuries of Darkness, picture across from p. 170.

[xiii] Ibid., pp. 122-124.

[xiv] Ibid., p. 93.

[xv] Ibid. p. 128

[xvi] Ibid., in front of Title page.

[xvii] T. Save-Soderbergh and I. U. Olsson, Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, p. 50.

[xviii] Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Oct. 1983.

[xix] Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p.378

[xx] Rohl, op. cit., pp. 56-57.

[xxi] Ibid., p. 57.

[xxii] Peter James, Centuries in Darkness, pp. 242-243.

[xxiii] Ibid., pp. 243-245.

[xxiv] Edwin Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, p. 50.

[xxv] Most of these reasons are found in David Rohl’s, Pharaohs & Kings, pp. 122-127, 370-71.

[xxvi] Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Egypt, I.272 to 276, paragraphs 769 & 772.

[xxvii] Peter James, op. cit., pp. 250-253.

[xxviii] Ibid.

[xxix] David Rohl, op. cit., Kings, pp. 141-142.

[xxx] Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd  Ed., III.1.558.

[xxxi] Petrie, A History of Egypt, III.240,248.

[xxxii] Peter James, op. cit., p. 251.

[xxxiii] Ibid.

[xxxiv] Ibid., p. 252.

The articles by the Prisoners do not reflect the view of this website but are published intact as the prisoners write them, however comments are welcome