What is virtually unknown to many is that all ancient world chronology, especially before 610 B.C.E., actually stands upon the shoulders of one of the most famous Greek dates for the Trojan War!
Additionally, the oversight in adequately evaluating the evidence for dynasty stacking in ancient pagan sources has significantly contributed to the challenges in establishing Egyptian chronology and its repercussions on Israelite chronology. Notably, the ancient practice of superimposing one dynasty line upon another did not escape the attention of ancient commentators.
Eusebius
To demonstrate, Eusebius (early 4th century C.E.), while discussing the list of Egyptian dynasties as they were arranged by the 3rd century B.C.E. Egyptian priest Manetho—a list which is used until this day as a guide for the chronology of the ancient Egyptian monarchs—expressed his suspicions when he commented:
Yet if the number of years is still in excess, it must be supposed that perhaps several Egyptian kings ruled at one and the same time; FOR THEY SAY THAT THE RULERS WERE KINGS OF THINITAS (TJENU),1 OF MEMPHIS, OF SAIS, OF ETHIOPIA, AND OF OTHER PLACES AT THE SAME TIME. It seems, moreover, that different kings held sway in different regions, and that each dynasty was confined to its own nome (province): thus it was not a succession of kings occupying the throne one after the other, but several kings reigning at the same time in different regions. Hence arose the great total number of years.2
Artapanus and Africanus
Artapanus (toward the end of the 3rd century B.C.E.),3 who also lived in Egypt, writes that in the days of Moses “there were at that time many kings in Egypt,” naming King Khenephres as the contemporary of the Pharaoh who was the father of the young princess who adopted Moses.4 According to Africanus, the Egyptian chronologist Manetho admitted that Dynasty XVII of the Hyksos governed at the same time as a native Egyptian dynasty located in Thebes.5
Kamose
In fact, Kamose, who ruled at the end of this Theban dynasty, writes:
To what end am I cognizant of it, this power of mine, when a chieftain is in Auaris, and another in Kush (Nubia), and I sit in league with an Amu (Hyksos) and a Nubian, every man holding his slice of this Egypt? He who shares the land with me, I do not pass him as far as Memphis, on the waters of Egypt.6
Multiple Kings
Scriptures, speaking in a contemporary setting of a single event, in the same way, often refer to the “kings of Assyria,”7 demonstrating that more than one king ruled Assyria at the same time. Indeed, even the archaeological records report more than one contemporary Assyrian king.
For example, a Babylonian letter speaks of “Asshur-nirari and Ili-Had[da . . . ], KINGS of Assyria.”8 Such evidence and numerous other anomalies are either ignored, reinterpreted out of existence, or pushed aside as not being relevant. Furthermore, there were numerous other regions in the ancient world where more than one king reigned in confederation, including places as far away from each other as Sparta and Media.
Modern-day chronologists will begrudgingly admit to this ancient practice of multiple kings but do so only when the evidence has unconditionally forced their hand, as it did with what they called Dynasties IX and XI of Egypt.9 Nevertheless, they still resist, as has recently been demonstrated when archaeological discoveries prove that Dynasties XXI and XXII were either partly parallel or in reverse order.10
250 Years
This evidence takes away another 250 years from the popularly accepted chronology, which they simply cannot allow. Irritated by such conclusions, many present-day schools of historical chronology will have nothing to do with such corrections. It is just too radical.
Besides, they have carefully built up their chronological systems over many decades, implying that time and their stated premises somehow make it factual. Therefore, they will only allow for minor, insignificant changes. To even suggest that there are major problems with their system is to be branded a heretic.
Dynasty Stacking
As a result, numerous flaws found in the premises used for their chronological systems and the evidence that demonstrates intentional dynasty stacking by the ancient scribes who developed these early king lists are tactfully ignored. In response, popular chronologists rely upon such things as radiocarbon and ceramic dating despite the rather troublesome flaws inherent within the hypothesis supporting these forms of dating.
They simply label such flawed techniques “scientific,” which somehow makes them true, and then use these questionable techniques to buttress their longer chronological systems. The gross misdating of the archaeological stratum follows. Yet chronology is far too important to rest in the hands of speculation and assumptions.
As A. T. Olmstead points out:
In archeology, as in history, the first question is that of chronology.”11
Pagan King Lists
The result of such bias and miscalculation has been to create an Israelite chronology based largely upon ancient pagan king lists that are themselves built upon elaborate and distorted frameworks that were propagated in order to deceive. The motive of many of these makers of ancient king lists was to glorify their own historical importance by providing an illusion of far greater antiquity for their nation.
The Higher Critics
Our present problems with Israelite chronology have not always been a conscious effort to degrade the biblical records. Rather, it has been the creation of an underlying prejudice developed by the traditions of modern historical schools of thought, especially derived from the German institutions of the Higher Critics.
Bias was born from the advent of rationalism, the belief that no supernatural or unknown forces exist in history. Tied to rationalism was the prevailing intellectual climate “in which philosophies of an evolutionary bias—whether Hegelianism or Positivism or whatnot—were the mode. . . .”12
Uniformitarian Principles
The idea that all history must conform to uniformitarian principles is now demanded. As a result, any source that speaks of events that defy the uniformitarian premise is treated as mythological.
Thus, ignored is the Creation Epic, Noah’s Flood, the long lives of early humans, giant men, heavenly angels, the plagues of Egypt, the Exodus Epic, the miraculous parting of the Suph Sea (Red Sea), heavenly manna, as well as other great acts of deliverance as recorded in Scriptures. Instead, these things are mocked, either being dismissed or having been relegated to insignificance. The chronologies found in Scriptures were given the same treatment.
The highbrow attitude of the Higher Critics was also a feigned intellectual reaction against centuries of dominance granted to the Church in Europe, which had come to be seen as opposing the scientific method. The fact that Scriptures established the principles of the scientific method and provided detailed methods for proof and reason,13 thereby standing against this late unenlightened Church attitude, was ignored. It did not fit their narrative.
Prejudice Against Scriptures
The additional fact that the “scientific method” was actually rediscovered in the modern world by religious men seems to have never gained the attention of their atheistic opponents. As a result, the underlying prejudice held by many leading historians against the books of the Scriptures and their subsequent desire to grant other ancient king lists a superior position for their own reconstruction of ancient world chronology has so grievously distorted Israelite chronology that many historians now feel that true Israelite chronology is unattainable.
Nevertheless, in the last few decades historians have gradually and begrudgingly been pushed toward the opposite conclusions. The evolutionary premise applied to the social and religious history of the Israelites has now been dismissed by the best scholars as a myth. Evidence from archaeological sites and a better analysis of scriptural texts have demonstrated that scriptural records were, at minimum, based upon very ancient and trustworthy sources.
To simply dismiss the evidence from Scriptures by claiming that it was late or ill-informed is now considered by most to be a grave mistake. Yet the bias favoring other ancient sources and the belief that the ancient pagan Assyrian and Egyptian king lists do not harbor faulty and stacked chronologies still persist.
The Trojan War
What has virtually gone unnoticed is the fact that these modern versions of chronology are not actually premised upon the independent dating of the Egyptian and Assyrian sources and artifacts.
To the chagrin of many historians, and virtually unknown to the general public, is the fact that all ancient world chronology, more especially that which sets prior to 610 B.C.E., actually stands upon the shoulders of one of the most popular Greek dates for the Trojan War!
The conquest of Troy is dated by Eratosthenes to 1183 B.C.E., and many other ancient Greek writers come close to that date. Meanwhile, the Egyptian priest Manetho gives the names of the contemporary Egyptian pharaohs of Dynasty XIX who reigned at the time of the Trojan War. Then, from these pharaohs, the rest of the early Egyptian dynasties were provided timelines.
In turn, the contemporary kings from Assyrian, Babylonian, Hatti, and other nations who are mentioned by the Egyptians and other ancient kingdoms found their chronological place. Even more disconcerting, the flaws innate in Carbon-14 and other dating techniques were willingly overlooked. The dates that were provided by these techniques were merely adjusted so that they would conform to the old and flawed construct used for dating the destruction of Troy.
Horoi Years
The irony is that the Greek dates for the Trojan War were developed by using horoi years (i.e., years that are seasonal, being only 3 months long).14 Modern-day chronologies have turned a blind eye to the ancient reports coming from the Greeks that they used horoi years. No one dared, for example, to question why the Greeks celebrated the Olympics every 4 years at the summer solstice.
What we find is that they originally did so because, prior to 510 B.C.E. (the year when their calendar was changed to a solar reckoning), a 4 horoi-year period in Greece began and ended with the summer solstice. Every four horoi years during this early Greek calendar was equivalent to one solar year.
Following from the year 510 B.C.E., the Greek calendar became a solar year which commenced with the summer solstice. As a result, the Olympiads were changed so that they would conform. These games now fell every four solar years.
Fall of Troy: 678 B.C.E.
Adjusting the Greek dates based upon their use of horoi years before the summer of 510 B.C.E. places the fall of Troy in 678 B.C.E., not 1183 B.C.E., a difference of 505 years. Yet modern-day chronologists, because they desire a much longer chronology, ignore and turn a blind eye to this contradictory evidence in order to maintain their own construct.
In reality, once we remove these false structures, superimposed upon us by those advocating the superiority of the ancient Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian king lists for the ante-Neo-Babylonian Era, and allow the scriptural records, supported by their cognate sources, to make their own case, all gaps and confusion in Israelite chronology disappear. In turn, the dates of other ancient kings and events mentioned in Scriptures can be adjusted to their proper time frames.
The 505-year gap created by the popular chronology for the Trojan War not only explains the so-called Dark Age in Greek archaeology but also the approximately 500-year gap assigned by popular dating between the almost identically built tombs found both in Cyprus and Rash Shamra in Syria, some which face directly across the sea from each other.15 These tombs can now be seen as actually being contemporary.
At this time, the king named Shalmaneser who deported the house of Israel to Media becomes easily identified, as well as the Pharaohs who were contemporary with the patriarchs Joseph and Moses. Many more examples can also be found.
Conclusion
Only when we make the appropriate adjustments with the construct of Israelite chronology can we create a fair comparison with the chronological data from other ancient sources.
Furthermore, once Israelite chronology is used as a proper guide for the ante-Neo-Babylonian Era, we shall find that the large gaps and periods of confusion found among other ancient histories will likewise evaporate.
It is clear that a fresh look at Israelite chronology is required, one that sets aside the false structures created by the hidden agendas and preferences held by many ancient and present-day historians.
Note: Adapted from a chapter of the forthcoming publication titled “Israelite Chronology” by R. Clover, to be published by Qadesh La Yahweh Press (www.yahweh.org).
Footnotes:
1 – Thinis or This was known to the Egyptians as Tjenu, the capital city of Egypt’s Dynasty I and II.
2 – Manetho, frag. 1:7.
3 – OTP, 2, p. 891.
4 – Eusebius, P.E., 9:27:1-37; Artapanus, frag. 3, 27:1-37; Clement Alex., Strom., 1:23.
5 – Manetho, Fr. 47.
6 – The Expulsion of the Hyksos. Gunn and Gardiner, pp. 45-46.
7 – E.g., see 2 Kings 19:11, 17; 2 Chron. 28:16, 30:6, 32:4; Isa. 37:11, 18.
8 – ARI, 1, pp. 137f, §§890, 891.
9 – Manetho, frags. 27-32b, 38-49; cf. HP, 1, pp. 263-317, 2, pp. 136-223; EP, pp. 107-125, 147-176.
10 – PAK, pp. 91-107.
11 – JNES, 2, p. 17.
12 – BANE, ch. 1, p. 15.
13 – 1 Thess. 5:20-21; Isa. 1:18; 2 Thess. 2:7-12; 2 Tim. 2:14-19; Job 38:1-2; Prov. 15:28; and so forth. For examples of scriptural science, against the false conclusions held during the Middle Ages, the Scriptures proclaim that the earth is round (Isa. 40:22), that giant quadrupeds (dinosaurs) existed (see Job 40:15-24), and that there are “pathways,” i.e., currents “of the sea” (Ps. 8:8), a fact that was rediscovered in 1847 by Matthew Fontaine Maury, the father of modern oceanography.
14 – E.g., Diodorus, 1:26:5; Solinus, 1:34; thus the attempt by early Greek writers to date the demigods of Egypt by horoi years (e.g., Manetho, fr. 2:2).
15 – CTRSU, p. 29.
Bibliography and Abbreviations
ARI, 1 = Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, vol. 1, “From the Beginning to Ashur-resha-ishi I,” by Albert Kirk Grayson, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1972.
BANE = The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Essays in honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. by G. Ernerst Wright (Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1961).
CTRSU = The Cuneiform Texts of Ras Shamra-Ugarit, by Claude Frédéric-Armand Schaeffer, London, 1939.
EP = Egypt of the Pharaohs, by Alan Gardiner (At the Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1961).
HP = A History of the Pharaohs, by Arthur Weigall, 2 vols. (E. P. Dutton & Company, New York, 1925).
JNES = Journal of Near Eastern Studies.
OTP = The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols. (Doubleday & Company, Inc., New York, 1985).
PAK = Pharaohs and Kings: a Biblical Quest, by David M. Rohl, Crown Publishers, Random House Inc., New York, 1995.
Provocative. Thank you.