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.

29 comments:

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

    ReplyDelete
  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.

    ReplyDelete
  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.

    ReplyDelete
  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.

    ReplyDelete
  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.

    ReplyDelete
  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.

    ReplyDelete
  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.

    ReplyDelete
  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?

    ReplyDelete
  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.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear David,
    By our calculations, the dating of the Exodus is 1439 B.C.E. Also dating for King Solomon is 963/962-924/923.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am amazed that at this stage of the game and with such magnificent sources of global information available to us that anybody can talk about David and or Solomon and actually try and find a Temple in Jerusalem among other places.Dating an Exodus that is unclear as to fact or fiction and referring to the son of a warrior called David who suddenly inherits an empire that wandering tribes do not have and who has a son who builds on it and has no name but a title derived fomm Sun Worship like that of Akenaton and also contained in the Latin for Jerusalem - makes it all meaningless against the Judean claims. Solomon like Si Amon, Amon RA etc are simply titles so the whole Judean pursuit of attributing it to real individuals in their history, is peculiar. In fact it even appears in Asiatic texts so perhaps its time to drop all this and try and determine from what other religious texts it all comes from and whether in fact something called the Exodus ever took place and what tribes these people belonged to. The Gypsies appear to be the Mittani People that gave Jerusalem its name and their songs and culture reflect it. They also call their God Adonai which appears to be Aton ai, the suffix being "related to" which brings them in line with the Gypsy Princes or Hyksos. These are the issues that need to be faced and which make sense but historical unattributable story telling which can be torn down overnight utilized to make territorial claims is bizarre. Israel is one set of tribes - Judea is one and neither the twain shall meet so perhaps people should explain whether they are referring to the tribe of the so called King David or the tribes led by the Benjamite King Saul who appears to be of the tribe of Abraham Levites seem to have been associated with Israel and the Temple at Shiloh where the Ark was lost and are therefore not Judeans who amalgamated with them much later and only for a while when hostilities opened up in the attempt to decimate the tribes. Both figures of course are without historical references. If we are also accepting that Jesus is also a chimera and that Jerusalem belonged to the Judeans at the time, which of course it was not, since its King - Herrod, the historical Architect, was not a Jew, then we begin to wallow in myth. The only historical record that appears to mean something is that the Judeans occupied Jerusalem further back in history (with the ruling Jebbusite consent) but never ruled and probably,as immigrant tribes provoke, got thrown out. Alternatively, they may have been rounded up and taken over to do hard labour in captivity as also happened to the tribes of Israel.All this needs to be looked into deeply to determine what actually means what. The time is now to stick to known inscribed history and flush all the nonsense into the open if we are to enjoy wading in ancient history with some sort of idea of what we are up to.

      Delete
  11. Mr. Rohl, I've read a number of your Works have been following your research and the patterns of evidence series for some time now. I'm a Christian and find most of your identifications and chronological conclusions compelling. After watching the Moses controversy film I began thinking about how Moses would have come to have Genesis 1 through 11 in his possession. I believe at one point you hypothesized that Jethro the midianite may have had copies and given them to him. Although possible, I have another theory that I find more plausible and possibly more in line with the meta-narrative of scripture. There are a couple aspects to consider here. First, as many before have pointed out the later parts of Genesis seem to be a compilation of various biographical narratives on the different Patriarchs that Moses would have compiled into one book. It's easy to conceive of these particular biographical narratives having originally been written by the Patriarchs or their immediate family and then kept in Egypt until the time of The Exodus. However for Genesis 1 through 11, I don't think that a direct father to son transmission makes any sense before Abraham. If Abraham got the stories from his ancestors, that would have been in the context of pagan mythology in the eyes of Moses and the Israelite descendants. Since Moses and the Israelites recognized the earliest part of Genesis as true history from God, it would not make sense for them to be incorporating something that they saw as Pagan mythology into scripture. Furthermore, the story in Genesis 14 of God calling Abraham out of his home to another land seems to imply that God was trying to make a distinction between the culture and practices which he was familiar with and a new distinct relationship he was calling him to in the new land he was promising him. This would seem to imply he had not really known this God before. Now in biblical theology, covenant is central to the way God relates to his people, throughout the entire bible, old and new testament. Of course the primary example is the covenant at Sinai. And many see this as just the continuation or fulfillment of Gods covenant and promise to Abraham. Remember Gods promises to give them the land and so forth started with Abram as God had chosen this particular line. Now at several further points in Genesis we see that the covenant continues through Isaac and Jacob in the form of the father-son blessing. And it is from their relationship with this God that he is known to the Isralites later (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). Now what's interesting is that in between Gods call to Abram to leave Ur in Gen 12 and his covenant with him in Gen 15, he meets a guy "named" Melchizedeck who blessed him by God most high. Now it's really interesting that although God had made promises to him before this, he does not make a covenant with him until after he had received the blessing from Melchizedeck, which is very similar to the father-son blessing which continued after. It's as if God is intentionally waiting to make the covenant with him until he's been blessed by Melchizedek. I know some try to say this is a reference to a different deity, but based on Abrams acceptance of it, he appears to recognize them as the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They must have been well equipped or they would have not survived more than a few months. Moses appeared to have done it for forty years, but short of the miracles or magic performed, the subject needs a much closer look. We cannot be talking about a few years for a type of pre nation to develop in the case of Abraham and yet it appears to sound as if it was an instant success like that of a coup détat and more in line with that of "Moses" and Akhnaton rather than a handful of followers like Jesus had. What was the religion of the people Abraham walked away from ? - it is known that these were the same Chaldeans who evolved through the years to the time of the Khanates mentioned by Marco Polo and which some scholars refer to the essence of the religion of Jesus.The Three Kings is not lost on all of use and have little to do with Judaic lore but perhaps way back in its history and revived at the time of he occupation by the Romans like the appearance of the Woman Warrior who took the Franks to nationhood? It does however bear reference to the Chaldeans and their Magical base. If so they had something to do with Magic and Illusionism which Jesus is also accused of and which involves Moses and some of the written events of his life and leadership.

      Melchizadek or priest of Melchi (The founder of the Templar Movement by protection was a Melchite Patriarch)and so was the so called Grandmaster who succeeded Molay and called Larmenius) Etymolgically speaking, anything with Mel or Bel shown in many cities today refers to the God Baal so Abraham and the Benjamite tribe to whom he and most the territories around Ur.,according to significant writers like Romer state, belonged to and this was to end in the massive inter tribal so called "Jewish" wars. The disastrous union between Israel and Judea, both Hammites, may explain why Abram was changed to Abraham led to an attempt on the part of Judea to reduce the leading Benjamites of which great Patriarchs like Isaiah and Elias were members of (as was also Saul Samson and Paul), to almost total annihilation on a false pretext. This was to show that the purity of the two leading Hammite Royal tribe had been compromised by sexual contact between a Benjamite and the daughter of a Judean Priest (accusation via defamation which more than likely was created to bring the hanging mobs out) In fact so harsh was the envy and hatred on the part of the Judeans that they slaughtered most if not all the women of the Benjamites and on being crushed only allowed to reproduce via Sabeans which now means Ethiopians - which is curious enough as it has its own Emperor who calls himself Lion of Judah. Benjamites were therefore condemned to lose their racial and subsequent religious identity through impoosed reproduction and cease to be a challenge to Judea. All this curelty and massive genocide to remove the Phoeniaican religious impact of the God Baal which the minority of Judeans did not accept.

      Delete
  12. This would seem to suggest the covenant with Abram was a kind of continuation of a covenant which belonged to Melchizedeck and either his "line" or people and then is "transferred" to Abram. Now this may seem far fetched, but if you look at the theological tradition of how the OT and especially the NT view Melchizedeck, this takes on a greater significance. Ps 110 is a messianic/ kingly psalm in which God promises priesthood "after the order of Melchizedeck." The NT picks up on this and applies it to Jesus who as Messiah us said to be both priest and king "after the order of Melchizedeck." Now there are a number of things that are significant here. What does "order" imply? Is this just the pattern of Melchizedeck as priest-king? Or maybe more. Melchizedeck is talked about at length in the NT book of Hebrews (5:10, 6:20-7:end). At one point it states "He is without father or mother or genealogy,having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God hecontinues a priest forever." Now Genesis doesn't mention any idea of having no father or mother. Now this may just be a reference to his apparent lack of history within the Genesis narrative, but perhaps the author of Hebrews knew something we don't? We see the phrasing in some ancient texts referencing a non-hereditary kingship. And that does seem to be what Gebrews is picking up on. Contrasting the levitical priesthood which was inherited and the priesthood of Melchizedeck which Jesus was patterns and did not receive by legal descent. Could this mean the priest-kings of Salem were an appointed position, not inherited? Furthermore, the name Melchizedeck is really a title. Hebrews mentions his name is translated "king of righteousness". Interestingly, in Joshua 10, when they conquer Jerusalem, they kill the king there named Adonizedeck. "Adoni" of course means "lord" as well, so it's really the same name, and thus probably a title for the kings of Salem. (What kind of reputation these guys must have had to have been known as the king of righteousness who lives at the city of peace?). Back to the main point though, if Melchizedeck had been the previous holder of the/a covenant with God, it would make sense for him to be the custodian of Gen 1-11 because that would have been "the word of God" at the time. The Word of God always goes with and even in a sense defines the people of God. Gods relationship with his people seems to always be by covenant through the word. So if Melchizedeck is passing the covenant to Abraham, it would make sense for him to pass Gen 1-11 to him at that point. The implications of this are also interesting. If the Melkizedeckian line had been the covenant people, this would show that Gods choice to dwell in Jerusalem was not random but perhaps a more ancient place that had been identified with his worship before Abraham and the Israelites. In terms of the archaeology this makes me curious if we will ever unearth information about the people and kings of Salem from Abraham's time and before. Perhaps there are tablets buried there which could shed more light on the transmission of the biblical narrative. Curious to get your thoughts...

    ReplyDelete
  13. After reading this, I realized just how ridiculous it was to attempt to interpret the ancient scripts without reference to all from whateverassociated religion. It is clear that a great deal of what we have today from the etablished religions are relatively modern and complete misconceptions of what the scribes had to say. Their job was to keep together the body of material available despite having to repeat themselves in that curious way by reproducing different lines of the texts which appear to refer to the same thing. Scholars thinks they refer to the two different versions of things by the Ben Yacoub and the Tribe of Judah. It means Israel and Judea.

    The idea it would seem, was not to lose any of it even if it came from previous fragments or individual translations of texts in different languages. The result is that each and everyone ties it in with their own beliefs and in so doing produce the reality they want to propagate for purely ideological reasons.

    I have studied as much as I could get togther including whole book commenteries on close approach to the meaning of it all and in particular to the Judean and Christian interpretation of ancient texts. It became obvious that so much time had been sent in the actual literal translation that the base reality of old had been lost.e.g
    Who was Abraham and why was his name changed to that from Abram ? Same happens with Benjamin.

    Could he really have walked out of Ur as a result of a calamity -. civil war or perhaps a challenge to the Princely authorities from which families, like the Umayyads in their days did when they walked out of Damascus or Baghdad to establish their own future empire ? The parallels are clear. Both walked away from their roots for fear of their lives and both appear to have founded a new international state . Could he have really walked out with a few members of the family and immediate friends or political followers ? Or was this a a major exodus which depended on their ability to find food and more followers along the way ?

    ReplyDelete
  14. When the two tribes parted after the attempts of Saul to reestablish his line of the Crown, Judea ceased to have anything to do with the tribe of Israel. I could go on and write a book on site, but it must show obviously that what writers have to do is go back in real time and establish exactly what meant what,so that all the false and dangerous concepts thrown about for political and religious gains can be seen in their true light.

    Just two parting shots:
    Abraham was subject to the priests of Salem and was taught( according to scripture) to forbid all blood sacrifice and instead reduce it to the two basics of life at the time bread and water which is what Jesus tried to do and may have not actually been wine.

    Jesus was obviously a vegetarian apart from fish. Animal flesh is never seen on any depiction of the Last Supper. Mohammed encourages vegeterian far in the Koran and sadly admits that if they have to and which makes it difficult for them to come closer to God,they must avoid pain and kill in a humane manner. He would have wanted sll his followers to shun animal sacrifice but realized that it would take generations to do that (Curiously, India is being submitted to a national decree against any form of killing of animals for whatever reason and will forbid flesh eating as a consequence)

    The priests of Shiloh at the time of Saul and his custody of the Ark, were called Levites so I cannot see why Judeans claim them for themselves, unless of course the shunned efforts of Solomon, considered pagan were a continuation and abomination of his father´s probable Sun worship and which had borrowed the Levites from the nation of Saul. The Judean Solomon, for economic and diplomatic reasons may have continued to adore Baal after their exposure to the Phoenician form of worship by the Israelites and which formed part of the great Phoenician cultural worship. He, whoever he was, has been associaed with great commoddity and mining industries and spent money like water not to mention marriage into Sabean Royalty and very close association with Phoenicians like his famous architect of Tyre. This personage, his real line and religious nature needs much closer study which may produce surprising identification with known historial figures as he is mentioned by name or title in texts of varied religious origins. In fact, Moses was vehement about the so called return to the old religion and calf sacrifice of Baal which makes his followers sound like Israelites rather than Judeans.

    Only by looking at all these factors can anyone attempt to discover what really went on and just how big the Israelite following was and where the evolving "nation" came from

    ReplyDelete
  15. How Do I Install HP Printer Assistant on My PC?

    The HP printer assistant is software that allows you to print, scan, and all sorts of printer’s functionality. However, if you don’t possess the software, you can download it from the official website of HP and install it by following a few prompts. You may be asked to agree to the terms and conditions. Once you install the tool, double-click on the software icon from the Desktop tray and start printing.

    Also Read:
    Blue Screen on HP Printer
    How to Connect HP Wireless Printer
    HP Printer not Printing Colors Correctly
    Canon mx922 Error b200
    Canon g2000 Error 5200



    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks for sharing
    https://davidrohl.blogspot.com/2012/09/pillars-of-new-chronology.html?showComment=1645166386977#c3447143454611086341

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hello David M. Rohl, Your idea of the Garden of Eden being in Urmia intersects with the Tibetan Kingdom of Shambhala announced in the sacred end times prophecy of the Kalachakra as taught by the Ngorpa School. Did you know that? There's a forum thread right now at Godlikeproductions (with your work linked there.). Could you please come to share with us there? Thank you. It'd be so nice to hear from you for us all. A bientôt peut-être.

    ReplyDelete