David Rohl’s New Chronology

The New Chronology

October 14, 2018 (8th month, 4th day): Evaluating the New Chronology

Where is Israel’s missing sojourn and captivity in Egyptian History and the missing Exodus? Where is the missing conquest in the archaeology of Canaan? These are questions that have bedeviled historians, biblical archaeologists and biblical chronologists. David Rohl attempted to answer these questions in his ground breaking book, “Pharaoh’s and Kings,” and then in a sequel “Exodus: Myth or History.” These fundamental questions are also explained by Timothy P. Mahoney in the Patterns of Evidence movie, and the accompanying book, “Patterns of Evidence-Exodus.”

[Photo of Scroll of Biblical Chronology Book]
The Scroll of Biblical Chronology and Ancient Near Eastern History

So let us cut to the chase quickly here and relate these questions to the Scroll of Biblical Chronology and Ancient Near Eastern History. Firstly, I was never impressed with Rohl’s attempts to revise Egyptian Chronology. Nevertheless, Rohl’s answers to the two questions above are substantially correct. How can that be? As we shall see, David Rohl is correct on the following points:

After Rohl passes the period of the Judges into the Amarna period, his synchronisms are no more than speculation. Here is the reason why. It is not the Egyptian chronology that needs to be revised downward. Rather it was the “biblical” chronology of Edwin Thiele that needs to be revised upwards. This is accomplished in the new chart book featured here. It should be noted that Rohl’s synchronisms do not work unless one of two things happens, (a) Egyptian Chronology is reduced by 186 years, or (b) Thiele’s chronology is raised by 186 years. Since Rohl knew what the weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology were, he felt safer with option (a). He decided to trust Thiele’s new fangled 20th century chronology of the Scripture.

Rohl’s downward revision of Egyptian chronology to make the matches of Joseph and the Middle Kingdom, and the Middle Bronze II with the Conquest are generally rejected by Rohl’s Egyptological colleagues. Nevertheless, his matches are correct. It is the biblical chronology that needs to be corrected upwards. When this is done, the matches noted by Rohl work correctly.

What was Edwin Thiele’s error? As I explain in the Introduction to the new book, Thiele depended on William Irwin as his mentor at the University of Chicago. Irwin was a higher critic who did not accept the authority of Scripture. This belief was partly transferred to Thiele sufficiently that Thiele was able to reject several key passages in the 2 Kings. As a result Thiele revised the chronology of the kings downward by 52 years, because Assyriologists assured him that the Assyrian eponym canon was error free.

The remaining 134 year error belongs to the period of the Judges. Based on 1 Kings 6:1 scholars have assumed that it says there were 480 years from the Exodus to the foundation of Solomon’s Temple. I explain in the book that certain chronological numbers in Scripture are ciphers that are plain only to those who actually listen to what the Almighty says. Surface readers will miss it. This means most scholars. It is quite plain from a summation of the Judges chronology that the time period was much longer than 480 years. The 480 years pertain to Israel going up out of the land of Egypt. The land of Egypt is the house of bondage. This is the key. The 480 years pertain to Israel going out of the house of bondage. But the 134 years that Israel went back into the house of bondage while serving false gods do not count in the 480 years. Therefore, the time period is 614 years (actually 613 to the spring of Solomon’s 4th year). This cipher principle is explained in the book and illustrated in the case of several other texts.

Thiele’s date for the divided kingdom must be raised by 52 years (from 931 to 983 BC), which puts Solomon’s 4th year in 1019 BC. Adding the 613 years brings us to 1632 BC for the Exodus. By another cipher (Gen. 15:13-16) we add 210 years for the time in Egypt, which is also explained in the book, and we come to 1842 BC for Jacob’s entry into Egypt, which is the 12th year of Ammenemhet III.

The Jewish Chronologists, in fact, figure 210 years for the time in Egypt as they were able to solve the cipher in Genesis. The Jewish Historian Josephus, and several 19 and 20th century chronologists solved the 1 Kings 6:1 cipher. For example, Clinton and Antsey’s dates for the Exodus are only a few years different from the Scroll of Biblical Chronology and Ancient Near Eastern History. The only difference is that I was able to refine it down to the exact correct date using astronomy and sabbatical periods, because I had astronomical tools they did not have.

Some Observations on Egyptian Chronology

  1. Radiocarbon dates begin to go seriously astray back in the early part of the Middle Bronze age, mainly because of the post flood reseviour effect.
  2. The 13th dynasty (Memphis) and the 15th (Hyksos-Avaris) dynasties overlap more than Egyptologists like Manfred Bietak credit. The Hyksos were in fact Canaanite and Syrian immigrants that had fled the famine to Egypt, and they built great houses alongside the 13th dynasty before overthrowing the country.
  3. Under the reign of Yannasi, son of Khyan, the Hyksos overthrew Dedumose II in south Egypt, and installed the 16th dynasty in Thebes as a viceregency. Yannasi was known as Jannas (Iannas) to Paul. The remaining 13th dynasty kings were kept subject to the Hyksos, and their names are little known.
  4. The worst of the slavery came next under Yannasi’s sucessor Maibre Sheshi, known as Imabres (Jambres) to Paul. And this was the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
  5. Khyan (15th dynasty) synchronizes with Sobekhotep IV (13th), and his predecesor Neferhotep (13th) synchronizes with Yantin-ammu of Byblus, a contemporary of Zimri-Lim, and Hammurabi, the Amorite king of Babylon. These were among the last 13th dynasty kings with significant power.

David Rohl’s Major Mistakes

Some of Rohl’s major errors:

  1. The Amarna period is not contemporary with King Saul. Rather it is contemporary with Deborah and Gideon.
  2. Rohl denies that Shishak and Shoshenk I are the same person and claims that Shishak is the same as Ramesses II. Kitchen and other scholars disagree with this conclusion. There is in fact an astronomical proof that Rohl is incorrect: A 1312 BC Solar Eclipse dates the fall of Troy, Troy VIh, which is shown by the Hittite archives to be contemporary with Muwatalli II. During the reign of the same king the battle of Kadesh was fought in the 5th year of Ramesses II (1300/1299 BC) with the Hittite king. The Troy eclipse is confirmed by another solar eclipse in the 10th year of Murshili II in 1335 BC, who was the Hittite king immediately before Muwatalli II.
  3. Rohl dates the Ugarit Eclipse to 1012 BC. Rather this eclipse dates to 1223 BC and for Ugarit presaged the Bronze Age Collapse brought about by the raiding Sea Peoples (Philistines).
  4. Rohl attempts to redate the fall of Babylon into the low chronology by lunar month matching and the Venus Tablets of Ammizaduga. This method on the borderline of statistical invalidity as pointed out by Peter Huber.
  5. Rohl dismisses the Sothic dating too easily. And my research with the El-Lahun Papyri show that the sothic dates are consistent with them.
  6. Another of Rohl’s mistakes is teaming up with Michael Rood. Rood can be credited with teaching Torah and Messiah, but Rood’s chronology is a false teaching disaster and wild speculation. Rood’s claim that the chronology of John can be shortened to one year between John 2 and John 12 is sheer nonsense, as also is his interpretation of Daniel 9. Rood’s false teaching goes a long way to bringing the legitimate truth he teaches into disrepute.

Sometimes I wonder if David Rohl’s agnostic world view has damaged his scientific objectivity and tempted him to use postmodernist methods of interpretation. I see too many speculative leaps in his interpretations, just as I see the same in Michael Rood. Perhaps that is why they get along. Both are experts at fitting things together and getting people to believe it, even sometimes, when the evidence does not justify it.