Israeli/Judean and Egyptian Chronology

[BryantIII]

Dear List,

This is tangentially related or relevant to BH since it does deal with chronology of the Egyptian Kings; although, I admit, that the dating of the Egyptian Kings/Pharaohs is used to give dates for some the historical information found in the Tanakh. Those on the list with greater archaeological background will be probably familiar with M. Christine Tetley's work (George ?).

What are your thoughts on the following information that was from http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.com/2014/12, ?:


"The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings

Posted: 01 Dec 2014 03:32 PM PST

The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings
M. Christine Tetley
Vol. 1: ISBN 978-0-473-29338-3
Vol. 2: ISBN 978-0-473-29463-2

Dr Christine Tetley died on 19 July 2013. She was the first female graduate of New Zealand’s Laidlaw College to be awarded a Doctorate in Theology. It was awarded by the Australian College of Theology, again the first awarded to a woman by thesis (others had been honoris causa). Her thesis was published in 2005 by Eisenbrauns entitled The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom. She completed this present work two weeks before her death. Her husband, Rev. Barry Tetley (M.Div. Hons.) has been in Christian ministry for 45 years, including 12 years as a lecturer at NZ's Laidlaw College. He was responsible for the final editing of the text.

The central chronological thesis of this presentation is established by the concordance of inscriptional and astronomical evidence available to Dr Tetley at the time of compilation. It radically differs from most chronological estimates in current Egyptological publications.

It establishes the early use of a civil Calendar in Upper Egypt with Wep Renpet as the first month, with a changing four-year link to the annual heliacal rising of Sothis, referred to in inscriptions. A great number of events reported in historical materials link to new or full moon events, that are pin-pointed by secure astronomical evidence. This evidence establishes the date of Neferefre's reign as the earliest secure date in Egyptian history. From this date, together with analysis of the Turin Canon, the reconstructed Royal Annals, and other ancient king-lists, Dr Tetley establishes new dates for the first five dynasties. Later dynastic records contain numerous sothic or lunar references, which enable the reconstruction of a chronology that conforms to astronomical evidence. Such evidence is not susceptible to the vagaries of guess-work and estimation from a flawed starting date, as is currently relied upon in much of the present information available to the public.

Dr Tetley's methodology must be examined on its merits. The study of Ancient Egypt is ongoing, and Dr Tetley hoped that her contribution to its chronology would provide answers with a confidence that has so far eluded the Egyptology community.

New information can fill “knowledge gaps” and further refine her endeavour. The editor invites readers who recognize such gaps, or errors in the compiled material, to communicate directly with him. Any material of chronological significance that could improve and refine The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings would be exactly within the intentions of Dr Tetley, and would be considered for inclusion and recognition within the existing narrative."

Please note that www.egyptchronology.com has a button to click that goes to http://www.egyptchronology.com/vols-1--2.html. You can download the books (pdf.).

[kwrandolph]

Dear List,

This is tangentially related or relevant to BH since it does deal with chronology of the Egyptian Kings; although, I admit, that the dating of the Egyptian Kings/Pharaohs is used to give dates for some the historical information found in the Tanakh. Those on the list with greater archaeological background will be probably familiar with M. Christine Tetley's work (George ?).

What are your thoughts on the following information …

You are right that a correct understanding of Egyptian dates can clear up some of the questions concerning Tanakh, but did Dr. Christine Tetley get it right?

She starts with the same action that most modern historians start, namely with the presupposition that ששק was the same as Shoshenq 1. But was he? There are other historians and archaeologists who disagree.

I’m not a professional historian nor archaeologist, so all I can do is to report what others say. What follows is just a short summary of a few items from a few sources.

There were slaves whose ancestry and identity was “Asiatic” (western Asia) all over Egypt from about the third to 13th dynasties. Then they left so suddenly that some of the men left behind their tools, and some of their women their jewels. Consistent with Exodus 12:33 that the people were driven out of Egypt. That pharaoh died and was apparently never mummified, in fact his body never recovered. Though he had had a son, he was succeeded by his brother, during which time Egypt was conquered “without a battle”, presumably because the Egyptian army was no more.

Shortly thereafter, the land of Canaan was invaded by a new people, but they burned only three cities in their invasion, Jericho, Ai and Hazor. They brought with them a new culture that supplanted the previous culture that can be recognized by archaeology. For centuries afterwards, most of the cities were either abandoned or small villages, until the iron age. From archaeological evidence, the Amarna letters could not have been written during the late bronze age.

There was a pharaoh who invaded Canaan and left a record of the treasures that he took back to Egypt, Some of those treasures are the same as those listed for King Solomon in Tanakh. In history that pharaoh has been given the name Thutmosis III. Because the Egyptian pharaohs had multiple names, it is very likely that the Bible records a different name than what historians record for the same pharaoh.

Who were the נערי שרי המדינות mentioned in 1 Kings 20:14–19, and why was king Hadad so afraid of killing them? It makes sense when it’s realized that these were the Egyptian troops that were stationed to ensure Egyptian lordship during the Amarna age.

There are many more details that others bring up, but this is enough to show that ancient Egyptian history is far from settled. It’s also very different than what presented by Dr. Tetley. These are parts of just one of the reconstructions of ancient Egyptian history, there are others as well. Most professional historians have latched onto the history that is conveniently the one that gives the oldest dates, of which Dr. Tetley’s is merely a variation thereof.

Personally, I think that Dr. Tetley has it all wrong, and I think that history and archaeology back up my claim.

A correct understanding of Egyptian history can help us understand a few things in Tanakh as well. But what is the correct record of Egyptian history?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jim Stinehart]

Dear Rev. Bryant J. Williams III:

There is an excellent short summary of M. Christine Tetley’s work here: http://www.jhsonline.org/reviews/review209.htm

I note in particular the following remark: “[Tetley] dates the accession of Sheshonq I to 997 rather than 945.”

Several historians have observed that there are fewer items datable to what is supposed to be the 1st half of the 10th century BCE than virtually any other century or half-century in the ancient world. That phenomenon seems to extend to the entire Greater Near East. Though I have no expertise myself on the topic, I would not be terribly surprised if someday the 10th “century” BCE were reduced to a 50-year period, with all other conventional dating left intact.

At any rate, for either the 10th century BCE or for periods shortly thereafter, a 50-year discrepancy in dating is very possible.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois