Egyptian New Chronology
Or Could the Biblical
history be True?
Page 3
5) New Chronologies, Mike Sanders' Revised Chronology
As mentioned in the above introduction, several attempts have been
made in recent years to provide new links between the Bible and Egyptian
history. As seen in the 3rd section, Egyptologists have long accepted
the fact that one king could be dated through a Biblical connection (1st
Pillar). Unfortunately, as we have seen, they made an error in the
actual identification of king Shishak... The first "major" revisionist
probably was Velikovsky... Unfortunately his ideas were far too wild
to gain any credibility... Yet, he nevertheless pointed out some
of the major flaws of our current chronologies, and for that alone, he
is worthy of mention.
More recently, two books by much more knowledgeable scholars came
out on the market, one even backed up by a major television series.
The first of these, "Centuries of Darkness" by Peter James (and
collaborators), first described the "Dark Ages" of many Mediterranean and
Near-Eastern region, then explained that they would easily disappear if
one could develop a new Egyptian Chronology. The authors' suggestion was
to have dynasty 22 overlap both previous (21st) and later (25th) dynasties
and to "fold" Assyrian chronology in a similar fashion. In this revision,
the mighty Shishak of the Bible is identified with the last great pharaoh
of Egypt's New Kingdom, Ramses III of the 20th dynasty. Many of their
arguments were refuted by Egyptologist... I personally haven't seen
all of these refutation articles, but, while some seem valid, others simply
are not... It IS NOT a fact that Shishak HAS TO BE Shoshenq, and
Ramses III really is a very likely choice.
The second of these books, David Rohl's "A Test of Time",
got a lot more attention in the general public, mainly because it was backed
up by the "Pharaohs and Kings" television special, and also because his
work contained many more Biblical references and character identifications
(a subject much more appealing to the masses... now you understand
my own subtitle ;o). Amongst his identifications, some are really
interesting, like that of the "Egyptian father" of Moses being Pharaoh
Khaneferra Sobekhotep IV of the SIP, but others (such as identifying King
Saul with "Labayu, king of the Hapirus" mentioned in the Amarna letters)
are less likely. (Labayu means "the lion", an unlikely name for a
Benjamite like Saul. On the other hand, Hapiru could really be a synonym
for Hebrew... in that scope, Labayu could be an earlier Israelite
King as at least one failed monarchy account is mentioned in the book of
Judges). For this identification to work, Rohl proposes Shishak =
Ramses II (The Great) and therefore wants to reduce the New Kingdom dates
by 350 years (vs 250 for Ramses III).
To reduce by 350 years (or even 250) is a lot... and the
era's specialists' outcry was quite loud! Notably Kenneth A. Kitchen.
He probably is the greatest expert on the TIP and his masterpiece "The
Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 BC) is without a doubt the
most complete source of information one can have on this obscure period
of history. In the latest edition of that huge book (608 pp.) he
includes a rather lengthy "1995 preface" in which he addresses many of
new ideas concerning his field of research, including many references to
the ideas of James, Rohl, and other revisionists... I plan to write
a full review of that preface in the future (Stay tuned!). In the
mean time, suffice it to say that, while many of Kitchen's criticisms are
well thought out and bring new lights on complex topics, others are unjustifiably
rude (and quite uncharacteristic of a scholar of Kitchen's stature).
Now that I have mentioned some of the best-known revision schemes,
I'll mention the one that is at the heart of the work here presented: Michael
S. Sanders' Revised Chronology. It stretches back from the earliest
parts of our written history through to the year 648, a date sufficiently
anchored in "known" history. Unlike the most "accepted" scheme, it
is based on a catastrophist point of view: every 13 years (and mostly every
53/54 (=4x13) years) terrible things would happen... Michael himself
mentions the possibility of a comet... I'd look more to the comet's
tail than the large body itself. Indeed, the Earth often passes through
such tails (this is what causes "meteor showers"). If only a big body (like
an asteroid) passed close by Earth every now and then in the past, then
yes it would be sufficient to create recuring natural catastrophes.
(Don't think of anything like the movie Armageddon... that's simply
impossible.) Thus, even though I was quite shocked at first
sight, I now feel comfortable with the idea, especially now that we've
found evidence of huge bodies impacting the earth in the not-so-distant
past.
Link
to Mike Sanders Revised Chronology
Anyhow, that initial trauma past, I noticed how weird were some
of his ideas about Egyptian chronologies... Many more simultaneous
dynasties than I would have thought, Menes being Khasekhemwy, Sesostris
I (i.e., Senusret I) being the pharaoh of Joseph's famine and so on...
I therefore set out on a most fascinating journey: I tried to check Mike's
ideas, I wanted to know how much of it was credible. A journey I
now invite you to join! Of course, I'm only an amateur, I do not
even claim as much knowledge as Velikovsky had, and do not think I could
have found the absolute truth in such a short span of time... Yet,
I still present these ideas to the world, in the hope that they provoke
some discussions and initiate news ideas and ways of thinking...
Who knows where that can lead us?
Let's begin this new chronology!
previous page | next
page
home page
send me an e-mail!
