Thursday, September 13, 2012

Pillars of the New Chronology

The Fifteen New Chronology Pillars

Methodological Standpoint:

(A) The biblical text should not be rejected as an historical source without first testing the 'historical' contents against the archaeological record. However, the archaeological record needs to have a reliable and well-defined chronology which, at this time, we do not believe is the case.

(B) The later chronology of the Old Testament has proved to be substantially correct when tested against the external evidence of Assyria and Babylonia. Furthermore, a limited number of texts from Palestine confirm the historical background of the kings of Israel as portrayed in Kings and Chronicles – including the actual names of biblical kings and their officials. The question therefore is not whether the Old Testament is a reliable historical source but for how far back in time is it a reliable historical source?

(C) A reassessment of the chronological duration of the Egyptian TIP has brought us to the position where we feel that we can make a positive contribution to this important biblical question.

A Basic Outline of the New Chronology

1. The entry of the proto-Israelites into Egypt took place in the late 12th Dynasty.

2. More specifically, Joseph was a vizier under the co-regent pharaohs Senuseret III and Amenemhat III.

3. The absolute dates for these two kings are derived by chronological calculations based on the research of Dr David Lappin who has demonstrated that the most accurate date for Amenemhat III – based on the sequence of lunar month-lengths found in contracts of the period compared to lunar month durations calculated using astronomy computer programmes – is 1678-1634 BC. Likewise the dates for Senuseret III have been confirmed as 1698-1660 BC.

4. The Asiatic settlement of Avaris, founded in the reign of Amenemhat III (located at what is now the village of Tell ed-Daba in the eastern Delta), represents the settlement of Jacob and his sons. This extended family formed the original nucleus of the Asiatic population in Avaris.

5. The biblical tradition of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt is a memory of this Asiatic movement into the Eastern Delta during the late Middle Kingdom and early Second Intermediate Period – specifically the late 12th & 13th Dynasties.

6. Domestic slaves attested in documents of the period have typical Israelite names which in this New Chronology are in reality personalities from the Sojourn period, whereas in the Old Chronology they represent pre-Israelite Canaanites living in Egypt.

7. The Exodus of the Israelites took place towards the end of the 13th Dynasty which correlates with the abandonment of the Israelite quarter at Tell ed-Daba (Stratum G) and the contemporary death pits discovered at the site.

8. The tradition, reflected in the works of Artapanus, that Moses was raised by Pharaoh Khenofres is regarded by the New Chronology as fixing the lifetime of Moses to the era from Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV (Khenophres) to Dudimose (Tutimaeus).

9. Likewise, Manetho's Tutimaeus, identified here with Dudimose, becomes the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

10. The destruction of MB IIB Jericho is equated with the destruction of Jericho by Joshua and the Israelites.

11. Following the work of John Bimson, the destruction of numerous Canaanite cities in the MB IIB period represents the true archaeological setting for the military conquest and settlement of the Israelite tribes in Canaan.

12. The evidence from a Karnak relief dating to the 19th Dynasty strongly suggest that the 'Israel' of the Merenptah Stela was capable of chariot warfare which in turn places the military conflict between Egypt and Israel in the United Monarchy Period or later. The Old Testament clearly establishes the first use of chariotry in the reigns of David and Solomon.

13. Shoshenk I is not Shishak because (a) from the internal Egyptian evidence (genealogies) he cannot be dated earlier than 850 BC and (b), through links to statue inscriptions from Byblos, he reigned only three generations (of 21 years each) before Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BC), i.e. 63 years + c. 745 BC = c. 808 BC.  Furthermore, (c) the Shoshenk I campaign inscription in no way compares to the biblical narratives dealing with the campaign of Shishak.

14. The earliest established date in Egyptian chronology is year 1 of Taharka = 690 BC. This is based on his 26th and last year being tied to 664 BC and the Assyrian sack of Thebes.

15. From 664 BC onwards the Orthodox and New Chronologies generally coincide.


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. 13. Shoshenk I is not Shishak because (a) from the internal Egyptian evidence (genealogies) he cannot be dated earlier than 850 BC

    What if Egyptian genealogies might be one or two generations short?

    Could have happened for a motive similar to the one St Matthew had for omitting three generations (husband, son and grandson of Athaliah = impure by sins) from the genealogy, for instance.

    (b), through links to statue inscriptions from Byblos, he reigned only three generations (of 21 years each) before Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BC), i.e. 63 years + c. 745 BC = c. 808 BC.

    Sure the dates and the generation lengths are correct?

    Furthermore, (c) the Shoshenk I campaign inscription in no way compares to the biblical narratives dealing with the campaign of Shishak.

    Ha, that is a very moot point. Assuming Shoshenk had done the exploit of Shishak and further had had very bad luck with the spoils from the Temple, would he really be leaving a record of that for later Egyptian generations, including obviously the next one of those enbalming him and assuring - according to his belief - his eternal fate?

    Would he not rather have preferred to make up a story that could not be checked in Egypt? For instance the one we have from Shoshenk's hand.

  3. Greetings,
    Hans-Georg Lundahl asks “What if Egyptian genealogies might be one or two generations short?” and uses the example of the truncated Messianic genealogy from Matthew.

    This comparison actually highlights a weakness in the objection, as the Mathean genealogy makes it rather apparent that it is truncated by the tell-tale sign of being schematic due to its 3 clusters of 14 generations, with David being used twice. However, there aren’t any real indications of truncating in this Egyptian genealogy like there is in Matthew’s, as the Egyptian genealogy does not bear any obvious indication of being schematic. It thus appears to be a natural genealogy accounting for all the ancestors. (I agree that a genealogy can still be truncated even if it does not appear to be schematic, but David Rohl’s argument does not hinge on the completeness of the Egyptian genealogy anyway.)

    Indeed, David Rohl has shown that phonetically speaking, there is a better case for Shishaq being Sysa (Ramesses) than ShosheNq with that conspicuous N.

  4. In watching tower of Babel it seems most think the tower was named after the town, however the city was named after the tower. It was named BABEL because the people appeared to "babel" One question might be, What is the Babylonian (Akkadian) word corrosponding with babel or confusion of language? We are guessing " BABEL" is not the Akkadian word for confusion.

  5. I have been researching the question of the "Phoenician" suffix CAR which appears in many of the things which can be assumed as of importance or great social height. I cannot conclude that it means hunter but more of the order of a Godhead like Amon. Titular heads appear to utilize names which like Solomon are more of a description like our "God the father" or the Aga Khan as King of Kings etc. Perhaps he can throw further light into what these three letters which appear right across the Phoenician occupied territories, can possibly mean and whether it may perhaps be equivalent to a status, like "royal" or blessed.

  6. Well Mr. Rohl when someone rejects your theories and you are unable to defend them , you should be a good enough sport not to block that person . You are a fake Mister and a coward at that.

  7. No one can deny that unless archeological evidence supports claims that they cannot be taken seriously. However, it is also true that ideologically based claims can be very persuasive and act on archeological findings to slot them into whatever they would like them to be. The story of Amarna for example would have served most to pin down Moses, but it has not even dented the refutations. How can two almost identical stories not bear reference on their protagonists and not merge them ?

    As for Car, I have yet to study it further, but when you see it in Hamilcar and his father carried the name of the God for e.g and many Welsh towns like Cardiff Carmarthen etc. apart from dozens of towns throughout Europe like Carvajal Cartagena (Carthage) and in names like Car, Cart, Cardinal, Cardiac, Carrefour etc. and read Professor Higgins, you begin to wonder whether there is no option but to connect it with the same origins. In Sumerian it appears that it refers to the Carians from Caeria and from where the Etruscans said they stemmed from. It is also written that these Carians were the precursors of the Minoans among other important cultures. It would seem therefore that the person he calls Emercar aka Nimrod or Noah was of the same Phoenician God who was associated with the Thistle or Cardo and or the Carians. I therefore humbly suggest that in its pure consonantal form it must surely define racial origin or else a God attribute. Just a thought, but given the scores of objects associated with the Phoenician religious culture, carrying these three letters it would seem to be trying to say something and definitely not Hunter.

  8. Dr. Rohl,
    If you think the Bible is a credible source for history, what do you think of 1 Kings 9:26 which says "Yam Suph" is a sea deep enough to sail ships, and is the Gulf of Aqaba?

  9. Dr. Rohl, Having studied Egyptian and biblical history for over 50 years, and having been a Velikovsky fan while seeing his obvious weaknesses, I admire the scholarship behind your thesis. I have long been especially suspicious of the Greek "Dark Ages" espoused by J.B. Bury and the C.A.H. third ed. Colin Humphrey's work on Exodus is marvelous. He admires your work but disagrees. I have yet to see a creditable refutation by any C.C. Egyptiologist. Just curious about the latest on this whole issue.