Growing numbers of scholars reject Bible history as myth because it contradicts the “astronomically dated” history of Egypt. We learned in Lesson 16 that 210 points of historical synchronism link Egypt’s 12th dynasty to Bible history from Joseph to Moses. The 12th dynasty is dated 3 centuries before the Biblical dates from Joseph to Moses. Either Biblical dates must be expanded 300 years to fit the Egyptian dating or 12th dynasty dates must be reduced 300 years to fit the Biblical dates.

Egyptologists say 12th dynasty dates are astronomically fixed and cannot be revised. This lesson demonstrates that Egyptian chronology is not “astronomically” fixed and can be revised 3 centuries later to fit the Bible dates.


To examine the methods by which Egypt’s historical chronology is determined and to look at some other considerations as to dating of events in Egyptian history.


Learn that Egypt’s historical dates are not actually “fixed” but are continually being revised.

Look at the findings of several men and the way they figure the astronomical date for Egyptian history.


  1. F. Petrie, “father of modern archaeology,” astronomically dated the beginning of the 1st dynasty to 5546 B.C. and the beginning of the 12th dynasty to 3579 B.C. James Breasted, of the University of Chicago, revised Petrie’s date for the 1st dynasty to 3400 B.C., a reduction of 2,146 years. (See Table 19-A)
  2. Breasted’s Astronomical Methodology

Breasted used “1,460-year Sothic Cycles” to date the beginning of the 12th dynasty at 2,000 B.C., 1579 years later than Petrie’s date of 3579 B.C. Breasted claimed that Egypt’s Calendar originally began on the day that the star Sirius annually appeared on the horizon just before dawn. Breasted affirmed that Egypt never adjusted its 365-day calendar for Leap Year, causing Sirius to appear 1 day later on Egypt’s calendar every 4 years. Thus, Sirius’ rising theoretically rotated an entire 365 days and coincided again with Egypt’s New Year’s Day every 1,460 years (365 X 4 = 1460).[i] Censorinus, a Roman astronomer, claimed Sirius’ rising coincided with Egypt’s New Year’s Day c. July 20, 140 A.D. Romans called Sirius by the name of Sothis; thus Breasted called the 1460-year periods, “Sothic Cycles.” See Table 19-B

Using July 20, 140 A.D., as the ending point, and the latitude of Memphis (c. 30°) as the observation point, Breasted calculated that previous Sothic Cycles of 1460 years began on:

  1. July 19, 1320 B.C. (1460 -140 = 1320)
  2. July 19, 2780 B.C. (1320 + 1460 =      2780)
  3. July 19, 4240 B.C. (2780 + 1460 =      4240).[ii]


Breasted declared July 19, 4241 B.C., as the origin of Egypt’s 365-day calendar and “the oldest fixed date in history.”[iii]

  1. Breasted’s Astronomically Fixed Date for Sesostris III’s 7th

Sirius’ rising was registered on the 8th month, 16th day in the 7th year of Sesostris III, a 12th dynasty king. See Table 19-A. 8-16 is 225 days from New Year’s Day (1-1) on Egypt’s calendar. At 1 day every 4 years, this shift took 900 years. (4 X 225 = 900). Subtracting 900 years from 2780 B.C. (when Sirius last rose on Egypt New Year’s Day), Breasted set July 19, 1880 B.C. as the “astronomically absolute” date for Sesostris III’s 7th year.[iv]

  1. Breasted’s Astronomically Fixed Date for Amenhotep I’s 9th Year

Sirius appeared on 11-9 of the Egyptian calendar in the 9th year of Amenhotep I, the 2nd king of the 18th dynasty. 11-9 is a shift of 83 days from 8-16 in Sesostris I’s 7th year. Breasted calculated the 83-day shift took 332 years: 83 X 4 = 332. Subtracting 332 years from 1880 B.C., Breasted astronomically fixed July 19, 1548 B.C., as Amenhotep I’s 9th year of reign.[v] See  Table 19-B.

  1. Parker’s & Hayes’ Revisions of Breasted’s Astronomical Dates

In 1950, Richard Parker corrected Breasted’s date of July 19, 1880 B.C. for Sirius’ rising on Sesostris III’s 7th year, to July 17, 1872 B.C., correcting Breasted’s date for Sirius’ rising by two days from July 19 to July 17.[vi] In the 1971 edition of the Cambridge Ancient History, William Hayes rejected Breasted’s date of July 19, 4241 B.C. as the oldest fixed date in history. [vii]Hayes, found 150 additional years of co-reigns in dynasties 1 to 9 and 142 additional years of rival reigns in dynasties 10 and 11, lowering the date for the 1st dynasty to 3100 B.C., 300 years after Breasted’s date.[viii] Hayes accepted Parker’s July 17, 1872 B.C. for Sesostris III’s 7th year. 202 See the Cambridge revisions of Breasted in (Table 19-C).

  1. Baines’ and Krauss’ New Revisions of the Chronology of Dynasties 1 to 12 In 1991 J. R. Baines lowered the beginning of the 1st dynasty to 2925 B.C., [ix]175 years later than the Cambridge date. (See Table 19-C) In 1985 Rolf Krauss’ revised Parker’s “astronomically absolute” date for Sesostris III’s 7th year from July 17, 1872 B.C. to July 9, 1830 B.C.[x]

Krauss located the observatory for Sirius’ rising at Elephantine on Egypt’s southern border, where Sirius rises 5 to 6 days earlier than in N. Egypt.

Krauss used 20 lunar dates to revise the rising of Sirius in Sesostris III’s 7th year to July 9, 1830 B.C., which he admitted was not sufficiently compatible with the astronomical data. Krauss reduced Sesostris II’s documented reign between 18 and 38 years to only 8 years and dated Sirius’ rising in Sesostris II’s 7th year (instead of Sesostris III’s 7th year), producing a date of July 9, 1838 B.C. However, the historical evidence indicates Sesostris II was dead and Sesostris III was reigning when the priests’ recorded Sirius’ rising because they were celebrating this rising in Sesostris II’s pyramid temple in memory of the deceased Sesostris II.

  1. Krauss’ Revision of the Astronomical Date for Amenhotep I’s 9th Year.

Sirius rose on 11-9 in the 9th  year of the eighteenth dynasty king, Amenhotep I. Thus, Sirius rose days later than it appeared on 8-16 in the 7th year of Sesostris II (according to Krauss). 332 years was calculated between the two risings of Sirius (83 X 4 = 332). Subtracting 332 years from July 9, 1838 B.C., Krauss astronomically fixed Amenhotep I’s 9th year on July 9, 1506 B.C. (1838 – 332 = 1506).

Krauss interpreted Sirius’ rising in Amenhotep I’s 9th year to mean that a new moon month began on the same day Sirius rose. Krauss calculated that a new lunar month also began on July 9, 1506 B.C. Krauss believed this remarkable coincidence proves that all of his dates for the 12th and 18th dynasties are “astronomically absolute,” in spite of the illogical historical and geographical inconsistencies involved. J. R. Baines claimed Krauss disproved all astronomical dates calculated before 1985, and thus Baines incorporated Krauss’ new astronomical date into Egypt’s new astronomical chronology in the 1991 Revision of the New Encyclopedia Britannica.[xi]See these revisions in Table 19-C.


To test the astronomical accuracy of these constantly changing “astronomical dates” of Egyptian dynasties, Ted secured the services of Danny Faulkner, who has his doctorate in astronomy and teaches astronomy and physics at the University of S. Carolina at Lancaster. Faulkner used sophisticated astronomical software developed by Dr. Brad Schaeffer of the Bethesda Space Center in Maryland. This highly accurate software demonstrated that the Julian date of Sirius’ rising had fluctuated on different Julian days in each century and that it gradually shifted at the latitude of 30 degrees from the Julian dates of July 14 to July 17 between 2,000 B.C. and 1 B.C.

Dr. Faulkner provided 120 dates of the rising of the star Sirius from different latitudes from 2000 B.C. to 200 A.D. See Table 19-D.

Based on dated risings of the star Sirius in particular years of reign of named Egyptian kings, Egyptologists check the astronomical compatibility of the Julian date of Sirius’ rising with multiple dates of new moon months that are dated in specific days, months and years of named Egyptian kings. Dr. Faulkner calculated more than 250 new moon dates that Ted used to test the compatibility of optional astronomical chronologies proposed by different Egyptologists. This same astronomical data (of the dates of Sirius’ rising and the moon dates) enabled Ted to test his own proposed astronomical chronology dated 3 centuries later than the dates used by Egyptologists.


Faulkner’s dates enabled Ted to check the astronomical chronologies of Breasted, Parker, Krauss and other Egyptologists based on dated appearances of Sirius from different latitudes. Breasted claimed that Sirius rose on the Julian date of July 19 at the latitude of Memphis (30o) for “many thousands of years B.C., until far down in the last thousand years B.C. when the Sothic year had sufficiently lengthened to shift the heliacal rising of Sothis to July 20.” [xii]Faulkner’s calculations showed that Sirius rose on July 14, 1880 B.C., at 30° latitude, 5 days earlier than Breasted’s calculation of July 19, 1880 B.C. Breasted’s 5-day error invalidated all of his astronomical dates based on correlations of the date of Sirius’ rising with new moon dates recorded on Egypt’s calendar during the reigns of 12 dynasty kings. See Table 19-D.

In 1950 Richard Parker noted Breasted’s error on Sirius’ rising and revised Breasted’s date for Sirius’ rising at the latitude of 30 degrees to July 17, 1872 B.C. Faulkner’s newly computerized dates shows that Sirius rose at 30 degrees latitude on July 14, 1872 B.C., three days earlier than Parker’s erroneously calculated date of July 17. This three-day error completely invalidated Parker’s astronomical chronology for the twelfth dynasty, which is recorded as “absolute” by Hayes in the Cambridge Ancient History. [xiii]

On the other hand, Faulkner confirmed Krauss’ date of July 9 for Sirius’ rising between 1838 and 1830 B.C. at the latitude of 24°. See his dates in Table 19-D. However, Faulkner tested Krauss’ lunar dates based on Sirius’ rising in Sesostris III’s 7th year in 1830 B.C. and found an astronomical compatibility of only 5% accuracy (1 out of 20) and only 25% on month-length accuracy (3 out of 12), for an average 15% compatibility, far below the accuracy of Babylonian astronomical observation: 82.6% on the dates of crescents and 66.3% on month lengths, for an average accuracy of 74.5%. [xiv] See Table 19-E.

Faulkner’s tested Krauss’ lunar dates based on Sirius’ rising in Sesostris II’s 7th year in 1838 B.C. (even though all the evidence indicates that Sirius rising was recorded in the 7th  year of Sesostris III, not Sesostris II). Faulkner’s computerized dates showed that Krauss’ chronology for Sirius’ rising Sesostris II’s 7th year achieved an astronomical compatibility for lunar dates of only 55% (11 out of 20) and a lunar month length accuracy of only 25% (3 out of 12). Together, these two percentages yield an over-all average of only 40% accuracy, far inferior to the Babylonian average of 74.5%. See  Table 19-F. Therefore, Krauss’ 12th-dynasty chronology is not even astronomically compatible, much less astronomically absolute or fixed. Yet, most Egyptologists now accept Krauss’ new astronomical dates as “absolute.”[xv]


Ted’s Biblically assigned date for Sesostris III’s 7th Year is 1535 B.C., 298 years later than Krauss’ 1838 B.C. date for Sesostris II’s 7th year. Faulkner’s test of the astronomical compatibility of Ted’s newly proposed chronology achieved the following results:

  1. Moon Dates = 15/20 = 75%
  2. Month Lengths = 9/12 = 75%

Ted’s astronomical chronology thus has an average accuracy of 75% in contrast to Krauss’ 40% rating. His new chronology has an astronomical accuracy almost identical to the Babylonian observation accuracy of 74.5% . [xvi]See Table 19-G.


In order to date the twelfth dynasty 300 years later than its present dating, one must disprove the continuity of unbroken Sothic cycles that all Egyptologists maintain as valid. The major premise upon which Sothic dating rests is that Egypt never revised or adjusted its 365-day calendar in its entire B.C. history.

In certain periods Egyptian documents prove that Egypt’s 365-day was not adjusted for Leap Year. However, Ted found documented evidence that Egypt revised its calendar at least three times in past history. These revisions nullify the 1460-year Sothic cycles and the ability to determine the century of previous recorded risings of Sirius.

  1. Rameses III’s Calendar Proves the Calendar Was Revised or Adjusted

In the 1st year of Rameses III, Sirius’ rising is dated on New Year’s Day. [xvii]Sirius’ rising on 11-9 of Amenhotep I’s 9th year in Krauss’ date of 1506 B.C., needed to shift 57 more days to occur on New Year’s Day. A 57-day shift requires 228 years at 4 years per day: 57 X 4 = 228 years. 1506 B.C. minus 228 years is 1278 B.C., the 2nd year of Rameses II, according to Krauss’ astronomical chronology. However, Krauss’ date for Rameses III’s 1st year is 1187 B.C., 91 years after the 1278 B.C. date when it was supposed to occur.[xviii]

Rameses III’s calendar proves Egypt revised its calendar. Breasted explained this discrepancy by calling Rameses III’s calendar “a religious calendar” that differed from Egypt’s “civil calendar.”[xix] However, Rameses III’s calendar united civil events and religious events on the same calendar, [xx]in contradiction to Breasted’s interpretation.

Foreigners occupied Egypt before Rameses III’s reign. [xxi]After their expulsion, Rameses III likely celebrated their freedom with a new calendar. Thus, Rameses III’s new calendar broke the Sothic cycle, nullifying the ability to determine the year or century of previous risings of Sirius.

  1. The High Nile in Osorkon II’s Reign (22nd Dynasty) Proves Egypt Revised the Calendar The Nile River flooded Thebes on the 12th day of the 5th month of Osorkon II. [xxii]Breasted refused to accept this reading because it contradicted his theory that Egypt never revised its calendar. [xxiii]The Britannica date for Osorkon 3rd year is 885 B.C. The Nile reached its greatest height about mid-September in Thebes. [xxiv]On this basis Osorkon’s flooding of the Nile on 5-12 of the Egyptian calendar should be dated to c. September 15. In 885 B.C. Sirius appeared at Thebes on the Gregorian date of July 3, 74 days before September 15, which is 2-28 of Osorkon’s calendar. Sirius’ rising thus shifted 114 days from 11- 9 to 2-28 between Amenhotep I’s 9th year and Osorkon II’s 3rd year. At 4 years per day, Sirius shifted 114 days in 456 years.

However, Krauss dates Osorkon II( III)’s 3rd year in 885 B.C., 621 years later than Amenhotep’s 9th year of 1506 B.C. The difference between 456 and 621 is a discrepancy of 165 years. Thus, Osorkon II (III) used a different calendar than Amenhotep I used.

  1. Osorkon’s Calendar Was Also Different From Rameses III’s Calendar

Sirius shifted from 1-1 on Rameses III’s calendar to 2-28 in Osorkon II’s calendar, a 57-day shift, which takes 228 years at 1 day every 4 years. Krauss dates Osorkon II’s 3rd year in 885 B.C., 302 years later than Rameses III’s accession year in 1187 B.C.[xxv], 74 years too much. Therefore, Osorkon II’s calendar is not a continuation of Rameses III’s calendar. Osorkon II was Libyan; Rameses III was Egyptian. Sheshonk I, the grandfather of Osorkon II, likely substituted Rameses III’s calendar with a Libyan calendar when he began the 22nd dynasty. Osorkon II’s Libyan calendar nullified the Sothic cycles.

  1. Shabaka (25th Dynasty) Used A Calendar Different from Osorkon II’s Calendar Another high Nile occurred on 9-5 of Shabaka’s 3rd year at Thebes.[xxvi] Shabaka’s high Nile of 9-5 shifted 113 days on Egypt’s 365-day calendar from the previous date of 5-12 in Osorkon II’s reign. At the true Gregorian rate (not Sothic) of 4.1288 years per day, it would take 466.55 years to shift 113 days on the Gregorian Calendar. But the maximum time that scholars calculate between Osorkon II’s reign and Shabaka’s reign is 210 years, short by 256 years.[xxvii] Shabaka came from Nubia or Ethiopia, south of Egypt, and thus used a Nubian calendar, likely different from Osorkon II’s Libyan calendar. New Year’s Day of Osorkon II’s calendar fell in the spring time and Shabaka’s calendar began in the winter time. In Israel’s divided kingdom, northern Israel used a spring lunar calendar and the nation of Judah used a fall lunar calendar.[xxviii] Shabaka’s Nubian, winter calendar was certainly not a continuation of Osorkon II’s Libyan, spring calendar.
  2. Shabaka’s Calendar Was Also Not A Continuation of Amenhotep I’s Calendar Sirius’ rose on the Gregorian date of June 27, 1506 B.C., the year Krauss designated for Amenhotep I’s 9th year. Thus, the high Nile of Sept. 15 occurred about 80 days later than Sirius’ rising on the Gregorian date of June 27, 1506 B.C. Adding 80 days to 11-9 of Amenhotep I’s calendar date gives us a date of 1-24 for the high Nile in 1506 B.C. Thus, the high Nile of 1- 24 in Amenhotep I’s reign shifted to 9-5 in Shabaka’s reign, a total of 221 days. At the Gregorian rate of 4.1288 years per day, 912 years should separate these two high Niles. However, scholars calculate only 790 years between Amenhotep I’s 9th year and Shabaka’s 3rd year, short by 122 years. Therefore, Shabaka’s Nubian calendar was not a continuation of Amenhotep I’s Egyptian calendar.
  3. Significance of These 3 Revisions Egypt thus revised its calendar at least 3 times from the 20th to the 25th   These revisions nullify the Sothic method of determining the century and year of dynasties that preceded the 20th  dynasty.

However, my research indicates that between the 12th  and 19th  dynasties, no revision of the Egyptian calendar occurred. On this basis it is valid to calculate the years between two recorded appearances of Sirius. It is also valid to calculate astronomical compatibility between dated appearances of Sirius with new moon dates that occurred in the years of kings from the 12th through the 19th dynasties.



  1. Ted’s New Astronomical Dating of the 13th to the 17th Dynasties

With 1535 B.C. fixed as Sesostris III’s 7th year and 1446 B.C. fixed for the date of the Exodus, the 12th dynasty ended in 1443/42 B.C. Using Britannica years for the duration of the 13th and 14th dynasties, I dated these dynasties from 1443 B.C. to c. 1317 B.C. 1443 to 1317 B.C. cover Israel’s wandering in the desert for 40 years, their conquest of Canaan and 84 years of the period of the Judges. The 15th to 17th dynasties reigned parallel to each other from c. 1317 B.C. to c. 1217 B.C. covering the next 100 years of the period of the Judges.

  1. Ted’s New Astronomical Dating of Sirius’ Rising in Amenhotep I’s 9th Year I have dated Sirius’ rising on 8-16 in Sesostris III’s 7th Year to the Julian date of July 15, 1535 B.C., at the latitude of Memphis (30 degrees). Sirius’ rising shifted 83 days to 11-9 in Amenhotep I’s 9th year, implying no adjustment for Leap Year was made from dynasty 12 to dynasty 18. This 83 day shift thus took 332 years (83 X 4), assuming that the latitude of observation is 30° (Memphis) for both sightings of Sirius.

However, Amenhotep I resided in his capital in southern Egypt at Thebes. In an unknown year of Thutmose III, a later 18th dynasty king, Sirius’ rising is recorded at Elephantine, on the southern border of Egypt. Thus, the 18th dynasty likely observed Sirius’ rising at Elephantine in the south, whereas the 12th dynasty had a northern observatory near Memphis. Sirius rises 5 days earlier at Elephantine than Memphis in 1535 B.C. At the rate of four years per day, we should add 20 years (4 X 5 = 20) to the 332 years and get 352 years + or – 3 years between Sesostris III’s 7th year and Amenhotep I’s 9th year. Subtracting 352 years from 1535 B.C. (Sesostris III’s 7th year), Sirius should have risen c. 1183 B.C. (+ or – 3 years) in Amenhotep I’s 9th year.

Faulkner calculated Sirius’ rising at Elephantine on July 10, 1183 B.C. Faulkner calculated that a new moon month began on July 9, 1183 B.C., 1 day before Sirius rose on July 10 of that same year. Bad weather likely prevented observation on July 9, but the moon was still invisible on the dawn of July 10 when Sirius first appeared, permitting the coinciding of a supposed new moon month and the rising of Sirius on July 10. Ted sets 1183 B.C. as Amenhotep I’s 9th year, 323 years later than Krauss’ 1506 B.C. date. See Table 19-H.

  1. New Moon Rising in Thutmose III’s 23rd Year A new moon month began on 9-21 of Egypt’s calendar in Thutmose III’s 23rd year. Thutmose III’s 23rd year is dated 60 years after Amenhotep I’s 9th year. [xxix]A new moon month began on July 9, 1183 B.C., on 11-8, in Amenhotep I’s 9th year. On this basis 9-21 of Thutmose III’s 23rd year should have occurred on May 8, 1123 B.C., 60 years later.

Faulkner calculated that a new moon month did indeed occur on May 8, 1123 B.C.



  1. New Astronomical Dating of the New Moon in Rameses II’s 52nd Year
    1. A new moon month began on 6-27 of Rameses II’s 52nd year. Ted calculated that the 6-27 moon date in Rameses II’s 52nd year occurred 269 years later than the new moon date on 9-21 of Thutmose III’s 23rd year. Subtracting 269 years from 1123 B.C. (Thutmose III’s 23rd year), Ted got 854 B.C. as Rameses II’s 52nd year. (See Table 19-H)
    2. Since 9-21 fell on May 8, 1123 B.C., 6-27 should have fallen on Dec. 9, 854 B.C. on an unadjusted 365-day calendar, in Rameses II’s 52nd year. Faulkner is now calculating the Julian date of a new moon in December, 854 B.C. His date will be recorded later when Ted receives this information from Dr. Faulkner. With these astronomical dates set, we are ready to work out the entire chronology of these dynasties and look for parallels with Biblical history.


Egyptian history is not astronomically dated as Egyptologists claim. Three revisions of Egypt’s calendar invalidate the system of “Sothic Dating.” Ted’s new dates for the 12th dynasty have a superior astronomically compatibility than the scholars’ dates have. His astronomical dates for dynasties 18 through 19 will produce amazing and abundant synchronism with later Biblical history.




[i] Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, I.25-29.

[ii] Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, I.30.

[iii] Ibid., I.30, 26, footnote a.

[iv] Ibid., I.31.footnote a.

[v] Ibid., I.31 and also note c.

[vi] R. A. Parker, The Calendars of Ancient Egypt (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1950), pp. 66-69.

[vii] William Hayes, Cambridge Ancient History, I.1.173-174.

[viii] Ibid., I.1.174-181; I.2B.994-996.

[ix] J. R. Baines, “Egypt,” New Encyclopedia Britannica, 18.109.

[x] Rolf Krauss, Sothis- und Monddaten: Studien zur astronomischen und technischen Chronologie Altagyptens (1985), 63-67, 100-110.

[xi] J. R. Baines, “Egypt,” New Encyclopedia Britannica, 18.107.

[xii] James Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, I.26.footnote a.

[xiii] William Hayes, “Chronology,” Cambridge Ancient History, 3 Edition, 1980, I.173-174.

[xiv] (82.6 + 66.3 divided by 2 = 74.5).; Peter Huber of Harvard University, “Astronomical Dating of Babylon I and Ur III,” Monographic Journals of the Near East: Occasional Papers 1/4 (June, 1982) p. 28.


[xv] J. R. Baines, “Egypt,” New Encyclopedia Britannica (1991 Ed.), 18.107.

[xvi] 210 Ibid.

[xvii] Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, IV.84.

[xviii] Krauss, op. cit., p. 207.

[xix] Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, I.29, note b.

[xx] Ibid., IV.84,143.

[xxi] Ibid., IV.198-199.

[xxii] Ibid., IV.369 (743) and note c.

[xxiii] Ibid., note c.

[xxiv] “Africa,” New Encyclopedia Britannica, 13.107.

[xxv] Krauss, op. cit., p. 207.

[xxvi] Breasted, op. cit., IV.452 (887).

[xxvii] E. F. Wente & J. R. Baines, New Encyclopedia Britannica, 18.120-121.

[xxviii] A.   Edwin Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of Hebrew Kings, pp.43-60.

[xxix] William Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 1990 revision, II.499.

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