The Chronology of Joseph and the Exodus
By the present chronological system of Egyptian history there are serious problems in synchronising the events described in the Biblical account with Egyptian history. Most scholars have therefore concluded that the Bible record is unreliable or distorted. In 1 Kings 6:1 it is stated that "In the 480th year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, in the 4th year of Solomon's reign over Israel ... that he began to build the house of the Lord". Most scholars would accept a date of about 970 BC for the beginning of Solomon's reign. His 4th year would be 966 BC, and this being the 480th year after the Exodus would place that event about 1445 BC.
But because of the lack of archaeological evidence both in Egypt and Israel to support this date, most scholars have rejected the information supplied in 1 Kings 6:1, and have accepted a date closer to 1200 BC for the Exodus. But even for this date there is only very flimsy circumstantial evidence, and scholars still disagree as to who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Dr Immanual Velikovsky claims that the fault lies, not with the Biblical information, but with the generally accepted chronology of Egypt, and that the Egyptian dates need to be reduced by some 600 years at the time of the Exodus. This would mean that the ruling dynasty of Egypt at the time Exodus would be the 13th dynasty, rather than the 18th or 19 dynasty as is now generally believed, and the pharaohs at the time of Joseph and Moses were the rulers of the 12th dynasty. When this system is adopted there is found to be remarkable agreement between the histories of Egypt and Israel. The following article, the substance of which has appeared in articles already published in Diggings, demonstrate the consistency of the revised chronology.
The Story of Joseph
Joseph, the son of Jacob, was sold into Egyptian slavery by his jealous brothers. In Egypt he was able to interpret Pharaoh's dream to mean that there would be 7 years of plenty and then 7 years of famine. Pharaoh appointed Joseph as vizier of Egypt, and entrusted him with the task of collecting the grain in preparation for the famine. (Genesis 41) This was an astounding event, and there should be some record of it in Egypt. In the time of Sesostris I, second king of the 12th dynasty, there is such a record.
Ameni was an officer under Sesostris I. In his tomb he left an inscription which is very relevant. It reads:
"No one was unhappy in my days, not even in the years of famine, for I had tilled all the fields in the nome of Mah, up to its southern and northern frontiers. Thus I prolonged the life of its inhabitants and preserved the food which it produces. No hungry man was in it. I distributed equally to the widow as to the married woman. I did not prefer the great to the humble in all that I gave away." Egypt under the Pharaohs, by Brugsch, p. 158
Ameni could well be one of Joseph's deputies who "gathered up all the food of the seven years ... and laid up the food in the cities." (Genesis 41:48) Brugsch recognised the significance of the inscription, and if it had not been for his adherence to the traditional chronology would have readily identified it. He wrote:
"The concluding words of this inscription, in which Ameni sings his own praises, have given rise to the idea that they contain an allusion to the sojourn of the patriarch Joseph in Egypt, and to the seven years of famine under his administration. But ... there is the difference in time, which cannot be made to agree with the days of Joseph." Egypt under the Pharaohs, by Brugsch, p. 158
But freed of this limitation, the inscription assumes great significance.
The heart of the twelfth dynasty was in the Delta. There were palaces at Memphis, Avaris and the Faiyyum, which provide a suitable setting for the establishment of the Israelites in the Land of Goshen. The religious centre was Heliopolis the city of the sun, then known as On. An obelisk still stands at Heliopolis, now a suburb of Cairo. This obelisk was erected by Sesostris I, and is today known as the Pillar of On. If we assume that Sesostris I was the Pharaoh under whom Joseph was vizier, Genesis 41:45 takes on a new significance. "And Pharaoh ... gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On."
The Faiyyum is a vast oasis in the desert west of Meidum. It today supports a population of two million people. This great oasis was developed during the period of the twelfth dynasty. The whole area is watered by a canal dug during this dynasty. This canal is today known as Bar Yusef or Joseph's Canal. No one seems to know how it got this name. It may have carried this name ever since it was dug in the twelfth dynasty. It could have been the work of Joseph in preparation for the seven years of famine.
At Beni Hassan, 240 km south of Cairo, there is the tomb of a nobleman of the twelfth dynasty. On the walls of his tomb is a painting depicting the visit of Asiatic people to Egypt. By the present chronology this would be placed close to the time of the visit of Abraham to Egypt and the choice of subject is inexplicable. If, as most scholars maintain, Asiatics were constantly moving down to Egypt and back again, why do we not find similar scenes in the tomb of every border official? The fact that there is only this one painting indicates to me that there was one particular migration that was significant for some reason. If the migration of Jacob and his large retinue took place during this dynasty, as is claimed here, then the Beni Hassan wall painting can be related to it. In any case, it is significant that migrations did occur at this time.
As for Joseph himself, there was a vizier under Sesostris I who had extraordinary powers. His name was Mentuhotep. Of him Brugsch wrote:
"In a word, our Mentuhotep, who was invested with several priestly dignities and who was Pharaoh's treasurer, appears as the alter ego of the king. When he arrived the great personage bowed down before him at the outer door of the royal palace." Egypt under the Pharaohs, p. 162
The Bible record states, "Pharaoh took his signet ring off his hand and put it on Joseph's hand ... and he had him ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried out before him 'Bow the knee.'" (Genesis 41:42, 43) The fact that he is not named as Joseph is of little onsequence. The Egyptians as well as Bible characters, frequently had more than one name.
The Oppression of Israel
"Now there arose up a new king over Egypt which knew not Joseph." (Exodus 1:8) Not that the pharaoh was ignorant of Joseph's services to the nation, but he wished to make no recognition of them, and, so far as possible, to bury them in oblivion. Josephus wrote:
"Having in length of time forgotten the benefits received from Joseph, particularly the crown being now come into another family, they became very abusive to the Israelites, and contrived many ways of afflicting them." Antiquities of the Jews, book 1, chapter IX, paragraph 1
By the revised chronology, this pharaoh would have been Sesostris III. His predecessor, Sesostris II, had no living sons at the time of his death. Sesostris may have been related to this predecessor but he was not in direct line to the throne, so could be classified as belonging to 'another family,' as Josephus says. His statues depict a man with a permanently turned down mouth and a severe face: physiognomists would have no hesitation in concluding that he was a nasty individual.
From the historical records we learn that Asiatic slaves were used during the twelfth dynasty.
"The Asiatic inhabitants of the country at this period must have been more times more numerous than has been generally supposed. Whether or not this largely slave population could have played a part in hastening ... the impending Hyksos domination is difficult to say." Cambridge Ancient History, vol II part I, p. 49
"Asian slaves, whether merchandise or prisoners of war, became plentiful in wealthy Egyptian households." Encyclopaedia Britannica 1964, volume 8, p. 35
Gardiner wrote:
"It should be noted, however, that on stelae and in papyri Asiatic slaves are increasingly often mentioned, though there is no means of telling whether they were prisoners of war or had infiltrated into Egypt of their own accord." Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 133
From the Scripture records, we can say that they did infiltrate into Egypt of their own accord, but were subsequently enslaved.
There was an extensive building program carried on in the Delta where the Israelites were located during this dynasty. The temples of the eighteenth dynasty at Luxor were too far away from the delta to have been built with Israelite slave labour - and they were built of stone. The buildings constructed in the delta under the twelfth dynasty were made of mud brick. Mountains of such bricks went into the city of Avaris and nearby cities.
Moreover the pyramids of Sesostris III and Amenemhet III were also made of mud bricks. The early dynasties' burial places were made of mud brick. The magnificent third and fourth dynasty pyramids were built of stone. For some strange reason these twelfth dynasty rulers reverted to mud brick. It is interesting in this connection to note that Josephus wrote:
"They (the Egyptians) set them (the Israelites) to build pyramids." Antiquities of the Jews, book 2, chapter IX, paragraph 1
On the assumption that the oppression took place during the eighteenth or nineteenth dynasty, this statement is regarded by scholars as a glaring blunder by Josephus, for by this time, according to their view, the Pyramid Age had ended. The pharaohs of the New Kingdom dynasties were buried in the Valley of the Kings near Luxor. But maybe it is the scholars who have blundered, for the kings of the twelfth dynasty did build pyramids, and what is more, they built them of mud bricks mixed with straw. "Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick as heretofore: let them go and gather straw for themselves." (Exodus 5:7)
Especially relevant is the research done by Rosalie David whose book The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt was published in 1986. She researched the work done by Sir Flinders Petrie in the Faiyyum. Petrie worked in the Faiyyum in 1889 and he explored the pyramids of the 12th dynasty and identified the owners.
He also excavated the remains of a town that had been occupied by the workmen who actually built these pyramids. He wrote:
"The great prize of Illahun was unknown and the unsuspected by anyone. On the desert adjoining the north side of the temple, I saw traces of a town, brick walls, houses and pottery; moreover, the pottery was of a style as yet unknown to me. The town wall started out in a line with the face of the temple; and it dawned on me that this could hardly be other than the town of the pyramid builders, originally called Ha-Usertesen-hotep, and now known as Kahun. A little digging soon put it beyond doubt, as we found cylinders of the age, and no other; so that it was evident that I actually had in hand an unaltered town of the twelfth dynasty, regularly laid out by the royal architect for the workmen and stores required in building the pyramid and its temple. After a few holes had been made, I formed up the workmen in a line along the outmost street, and regularly cleared the first line of chambers, turning the stuff into the street; then the chambers beyond those were emptied into them; and so line after line, block after block, almost every room in the town was emptied out and searched." Ten Years Digging in Egypt, pp. 112 - 113
From the unidentified pottery and other evidence, Petrie concluded that the occupants had been foreigners. Expanding on this thought Rosalie David has an entire chapter headed "The foreign population at Kahun." She wrote:
"From his excavations at Kahun, Petrie formed the opinion that a certain element of the population there had come from outside Egypt." The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt, p. 175
"It is undeniable that the inhabitants used foreign wares which were derived from the Aegean islands or from Syria-Palestine." p. 188.
"It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may reflect the situation elsewhere in Egypt. It can be stated that these people were loosely classed by Egyptians as 'Asiatics', although their exact homeland in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined... The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear." pp. 190-191.
Neither Petrie nor David guessed that these Asiatics were the Israelites because they unquestioningly accept the standard chronology. elikovsky's views have so far not been widely accepted by the archaeological world, but obviously the evidence fits the Biblical records in a remarkable way.
The book of Genesis tells how and why these Asiatics got there and what they were doing in Egypt. "Then Jacob arose from Beersheba; and the sons of Israel carried their father Jacob, their little ones, and their wives, in the carts which Pharaoh had sent to carry him. So they their livestock and their goods, which they had acquired in the land of Canaan, and went to Egypt, Jacob and all his descendants with him." (Genesis 46:5 - 7) "But the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them." (Exodus 1:7)
No doubt the heaviest concentration of the Israelite immigrants was in the Delta, but knowing the Hebrew capacity for industry, trade and enterprise, there is no reason to conclude that they would all confine themselves to the same location, and the tomb paintings at Beni Hassan depicting Asiatic immigrants in the twelfth dynasty indicate that they had spread as far as central Egypt. The Hebrews have always had remarkable ability to maintain their identity, and this would explain the foreign settlement at Kahun which Petrie investigated.
Evidence is not lacking to indicate that these Asiatics became slaves.
"A famous papyrus (the Brooklyn Papyrus) was left to the Brooklyn Museum ... On the verso of this papyrus, a woman named Senebtisi attempts to establish her legal rights to the possession of ninety-five servants. A list of them is included which states their titles, names and surnames, and their occupations. Of the seventy-seven entries which are presented well enough to enable the individual's nationality to be read, twenty-nine appear to be Egyptian while forty-eight are 'Asiatics' ... Although the foreign names were not precise enough to enable the exact homeland of these Asiatics to be identified, it can be said that they were from a 'Semitic group of the north west' ... The Brooklyn Papyrus is important here because it shows that one household employed a large proportion of Asiatics and this household was situated in Upper Egypt (the south) and not in the Delta; therefore it is apparent that Asiatic servants were by now disseminated throughout the community." The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt, pp. 189 - 190.
"Asian slaves, whether merchandise or prisoners of war, became plentiful in wealthy Egyptian households." (during the twelfth dynasty). Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1964, volume 8, p. 35
"The Asiatic inhabitants of the country at this period must have been many times more numerous than has generally been supposed. Whether or not this largely slave population could have played a part in the hastening, or the paving the way for, the impending Hyksos domination is difficult to say." Cambridge Ancient History, volume II, part 1, p. 49
An intriguing aspect of Petrie's discoveries was the unusual number of infant burials beneath the floors of the houses at Kahun, a tragic reminder of the harsh edicts issued by the cruel tyrants of the oppression.
"Beneath the brick floors of the rooms was, however, the best place to search; not only for hidden things, such as the statuette of a dancer and a pair of ivory castanets, but also for numerous burials of babies in wooden boxes. These boxes had been made for clothes and household use, but were used to bury infants, often accompanied by necklaces and other things. On the necklaces were sometimes cylinders with the kings' names; and thus we know for certain that these burials, and the inhabitants of the town, are of the twelfth dynasty, from Usertesen (Sesostris) II onward." Ten Years Digging in Egypt, pp. 116 - 117
We have in the Bible what is probably a partial record of the efforts of the Pharaohs of the oppression to curb the growth of the Israelites. "Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of the one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; and he said, 'when you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him'." (Exodus 1:15, 16)
These were probably only the midwives in the vicinity of the royal palace. Obviously a large population such as the Israelites then were, scattered all over Egypt, would require more that two midwives. These two midwives evaded their grim responsibility to Pharaoh by claiming that the Hebrew women gave birth before they arrived, but we do not know how many other midwives lacked their excuse and were obliged to carry out the edict.
Later, when Pharaoh found that these measures were not effective, he ordered the Egyptian neighbours to see that the babies were killed. "Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, 'Every son who is born you shall cast into the river'." (Exodus 1:22) Some parents managed to conceal their newborn babies for some months. Moses mother "when she saw that he was a beautiful child, she hid him three months." (Exodus 2:3) But many babies must have been drowned.
Whether the parents retrieved the bodies, or whether some babies were put to death by other means we do not know, but there must have been many traumatic scenes as babies were torn from their mother's arms by hostile neighbours. This tragic story could account for the many infant burials at Kahun.
In her book, beneath a picture of a wooden box, David says:
"Larger wooden boxes, probably used to store clothing and other possessions, we discovered underneath the floors of many houses at Kahun. They contained babies, sometimes buried two or three to a box, and aged only a few months at death . . . internment of bodies at domestic sites was not an Egyptian custom, although such practices occurred in other areas of the ancient Near East."
Finally there is the striking evidence pointing to the slaves' sudden departure. Up to the time of Khasekhemre-Neferhotep I of the middle thirteenth dynasty, who would thus be identified as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, there was evidence of continuous occupation. Then it suddenly all stopped.
"There is every indication that Kahun continued to flourish throughout the 12th dynasty and into the 13th dynasty ... It is evident that the completion of the king's pyramid was not the reason why Kahun's inhabitants eventually deserted the town, abandoning their tools and other possessions in the shops and houses ... There are different opinions of how this first period of occupation at Kahun drew to a close. ... The quantity, range and type of articles of everyday use which were left behind in the houses may indeed suggest that the departure was sudden and unpremeditated." The Pyramid Builders, pp. 195, 199.
"And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years - on the very same day - it came to pass that the armies of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt." Exodus 12:41.
The last ruler of the 12th dynasty was Queen Sebekhnefrure who died childless. She would have been the Daughter of Pharaoh who adopted the baby Moses. The 13th dynasty followed and Khasekemre-Neferhotep I was probably the Pharaoh of the Exodus. He was the last king to rule before the Hyksos occupied Egypt "without a battle" according to Manetho. Without a battle? Where was the Egyptian army? It would have been at the bottom of the Red Sea. (Exodus 14:28)
The Invasion of Palestine
Under this revised chronology the invasion of Palestine in 1405 BC occurred not during the Late Bronze period as currently believed, but at the end of the Early Bronze period. With this placement we find the archaeological evidence that is so lacking during the Late Bronze era. In Jericho Professor John Garstang found walls that had toppled outwards, layers of ash and charred wheat and dates which he dated to the middle of the Late Bronze period, and therefore, in his thinking, to the Israelite invasion. Later, when Kathleen Kenyon re-excavated Jericho, she was obliged to redate Garstang's walls and ash to the end of the Early Bronze age. This effectively ruled it out as attributable to the Israelites by the standard chronology. But with this revision it once more becomes the obvious evidence that it is, and visitors to Jericho today can still see a one metre layer of pink ash from this period.
And it is not only at Jericho that the evidence is found. In her book Archaeology in the Holy Land p. 134, Kenyon wrote:
"The final end of the early Bronze Age civilization came with catastrophic completeness. The last of the Early Bronze Age walls of Jericho was built in a great hurry, using old and broken bricks, and was probably not completed when it was destroyed by fire. Little or none of the town inside the walls has survived subsequent denudation, but it was probably completely destroyed, for all the finds show that there was an absolute break, and that a new people took the place of the earlier inhabitants. Every town in Palestine that has so far been investigated shows the same break. The newcomers were nomads, not interested in town life, and they so completely drove out or absorbed the old population, that all traces of the Early Bronze Age civilization disappeared."
"An absolute break ... a new people ... every town in Palestine ... newcomers were nomads ... completely drove out or absorbed the old population ..." Could we expect to find a more apt description of the Israelite invasion, nomads from the desert who initially were not interested in living in the cities?
James Pritchard, who excavated in Gibeon, states:
"These relics of the Middle Bronze I people seem to indicate a fresh migration into the town of a nomadic people who brought with them an entirely new tradition in pottery forms and new customs in burial practices. They may have come into Palestine from the desert at the crossing of the Jordan near Jericho and may then have pushed on to settle eventually at places such as Gibeon, Tell el-Ajjul and Lachish, where tombs of this distinctive type have been found." Gibeon, Where the Son Stood Still, p. 153
Nothing could more aptly fit the Biblical record of the Israelites coming in from their desert wanderings, crossing the Jordan at Jericho and occupying the Promised Land.
Strange to say Pritchard uses these very facts to try and prove the unreliability of the book of Joshua. When the Gibeonites defected to Joshua, the other five prominent cities of Palestine were apprehensive, "They feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city, like one of the royal cities ... and all its men were mighty." (Joshua 10:2) Pritchard did indeed find that Gibeon was a great city, but not during the Late Bronze Period when he thought that the Israelite invasion took place. He wrote:
"Since Gibeon is described as a 'great city' at this time, one would expect to find city walls and houses if the tradition preserved in the book of Joshua is historically trustworthy. Yet traces of this city of the latter part of the Late Bronze period have not come to light in the four seasons of excavations - the remains of the 'great city' of Joshua's day are not to be found." Gibeon, Where the Son Stood Still, pp. 157, 158
Extraordinary! He found them but did not recognise them.
Carbon Dating
Carbon-14 dating is often quoted in support of ancient Egyptian dates. But what most people do not realise is that these carbon-14 dates have to be calibrated to agree with the generally accepted dates of Egyptian history.
There is a chapter on dating methods, in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology. The chapter is very relevant to the problem of Egyptian chronology. On p. 424 the following paragraph appears:
"When the radiocarbon method was first tested, good agreement was found between radiocarbon dates and historical dates for samples of known age (for example, from Ancient Egyptian contexts). As measurements became more precise, however, it gradually became apparent that there were systematic discrepancies between the dates that were being obtained and those that could be expected from historical evidence. These differences were most marked in the period before about the mid-first millennium BC, in which radiocarbon dates appear too recent, by up to several hundred years, in comparison with historical dates. Dates for the earliest comparative material available - reeds used as bonding between mud brick courses of tombs of Egyptian Dynasty I, about 3,100 BC - appeared to be as much as 600 years, or about 12%, too young."
600 years too young! And the differences were most marked in the period before about the mid-first millennium BC. That is the period of time that Dr Immanual Velikovsky, and Dr Donovan Courville claimed has been erroneously added to Egyptian chronology.
"The magnitude of the task confronting any one who would attempt to propose a credible altered chronology involving a condensation of this magnitude was becoming increasingly apparent. The discrepancy in terms of Biblical chronology is of the magnitude of more than 600 years at the time of the Conquest (of Jericho by Joshua)." The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, by D. Courville, volume 1, p. XVIII
The problem, of course, is in reconciling the Biblical record of the Exodus with the history of Egypt. Most archaeologists assign the Exodus to the 18th or 19th dynasty. But these were the most powerful dynasties that ever ruled Egypt, and there is no trace of any disaster of the magnitude of the plagues that fell on Egypt prior to the Exodus, or the destruction of the Pharaoh and his army in the waters of the Red Sea.
So, if the chronology usually adopted for Egyptian history is correct, the Biblical record of the Exodus must be discredited. But if the revision of dates proposed by these later scholars is to be accepted, and Egyptian chronology is reduced by approximately 600 years, then the Exodus would have occurred after the 12 dynasty ended, and at that time there is abundant evidence for national disaster in Egypt.
Where then should 600 years be dropped from Egyptian dates? The Nubian king Tirharka of the 25th dynasty came to the throne of Egypt in 690 BC, and was contemporary with King Hezekiah of Judah who reigned from 729 to 686 BC. 2 Kings 19:9. These kings were also contemporary with Sennacherib of Assyria, verse 16, who ruled 705 - 681 BC. So there is no dispute about Egyptian chronology back to these dates.
But Pharaoh Merneptah of the 19th dynasty, usually dated about 1236 BC, states on his stele, "Israel is desolate, his seed is no more." Courville ascribes this to the conquest of Samaria by the Assyrians, and the exile of the ten tribes in 722 BC. If that placement is correct, as seems likely, then instead of living in the 13th century BC, Merneptah and his father Rameses the Great must have ruled in the 8th century BC, shortly before Tirharka of the 25th dynasty.
This then would account for the reduction of dates by more than 500 years shortly before 700 BC. It means that dynasties 20 to 23 must be regarded as contemporary with 19 and 24, and the time period of nearly 500 years usually allotted to dynasties 20 to 23 would be dropped from the progressive time scale. A further reduction would result from recognising that some kings of dynasties 18 and 19 were also contemporary.
So the radiocarbon dates should not have been manipulated to "agree" with Egyptian history "in the period before about the mid-first millennium BC." Rather Egyptian history should have been shortened to agree with the radiocarbon dates for this time.
| AGES | CHARACTER | USUAL DATES | REVISED DATES | BIBLICAL EVENTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STONE AGE | Migrations First cities | 10,000-3,100 | 2,300-2,100 | Era after the Flood |
| EARLY BRONZE | Urban life develops Destruction of cities | 3,100-2,100 | 2,100-1,400 | Canaanites |
| MIDDLE BRONZE I | Invaders from south New, nomadic culture Pottery with Egyptian influence | 2,100-1,850 | 1,400-1,000 | Israelites Era of Judges |
| MIDDLE BRONZE II | Sophisticated culture Affluent lifestyle Prosperous Fortified cities | 1,850-1,550 | 1,000-722 (north) 1,000-586 (south) | Israelite Monarchy |
| LATE BRONZE | Some people as MB Inferior pottery Cities not fortified Massive depopulation | 1,550-1,200 | 586-539 | Assyrian & Babylonian invasions. Exile |
| IRON | Increase in population Same people as MB/LB Fortified cities | 1,200-586 | 539-300 | Return from Exile |
© David K. Down 2003
