(( can we claim to know that? ))

 

Hello, Bjorn. In the sense of dogmatic assurance, no. In the sense of persuasive evidence, yes.

 

The books of Kings and Chronicles contain a treasury of time markers -- the regnal lengths for each monarch of Judah and Israel, and synchronisms between each line at each step of the way. Very few people have the interest, time, or motivation to methodically go through that information. However, if one does, one finds that it can be synchronized in a consistent manner. As you know this is the study which Edwin Thiele presents in a persuasive way (if one does take the considerable time required to go through it carefully). Kenneth Kitchen's studies affirm his concurrence with the results -- my own studies independently confirm the result back to Solomon -- Rodger Young's independent studies do essentially the same -- and other published author's agree.

 

Meanwhile the double cord of evidence in the AKL and the Limmu lists form a cohesive an independent testimony for about the same period.

 

When the two histories are compared, say between Ahab and Hoshea, the two spans are found match -- for their are links between Assyria and Ahab, and Assyria and Hoshea, making the comparison specific and persuasive. This helps counteract the concern you expressed about bias in any particular nation's records.

 

---------------------------------------

 

So far so good -- many people concur to this point. But what are the reasonble implications of this, reaching farther back in time? As the regnal and synchronistic data of Kings and Chronicles is thus testified to be consistent and evidently reliable, the integrity of the testimony of 1 Kngs 6:1 is augmented. It is from the same stock and culture as the other testimonies -- and the Israelites, specially the court of the great king Solomon, into whose Kingdom even the Pharaoh sent his daughter to seal a marriage alliance -- had an easy method of determining the information contained in 1 Kings 6:1. For aside from any other national records, the count of Jubilees, which was kept up even to the close of the Judean kingdom, was adequate to yield such information.

 

This single text pushes our credible information back as far as the Exodus.

 

And it allows an independent check on the results -- for following 40 years in the wilderness to the entrance into the land of Israel, when the Jubilee cycles began to count, we can match the years from there forward to Ezekiel 40:1, the last and 17th Jubilee, even to the very year. With markers along the way for the foundation of the Temple (which began in a Sabbath year preceding a Jubilee year), and the unique Sabbath marker of 2 Kings 19:29, which are in perfect synch with the sabbath and jubilee cycles.

 

This is reasonable evidence.

 

---------------------------------------

 

But now how to connect the history of other nations? If we allow the reasonable conclusions above to serve as a basis, at least tenatively, then we can match the history of Egypt to this. As you know, the NC breaks the usual association of Shishak - Sheshonk, and I presumed with most interested in revising ancient history that this would be a good candidate for change. But as time passed, the evidence for the link seemed to me to overcome the negatives.

 

-- The name connection is very direct
-- If the daughter of Psusennes II married Sheshonk I then the dynasties did not overlap
-- Kenneth Kitchen's treastise on dead-reckoning back to Sheshonk is very reasonable

 

For all the reasons that Alan Montgomery specifies -- and there are three good reasons for this at least -- the Exodus does fit very nicely with the close of the 12th Dynasty. So can we compress customary Egyptian history from D12 to D22 to fit Israelite history in a plausible manner? It seems we can -- and that in the process various other requirements are satisfied as well.

 

The Kushara - Kushan link is among them. This is a change for me from my former opinion about a possible link between Mittani and Cushan. After examining the matter for some time, seeking some solution for some intrinsic difficulties, I seemed forced to give up the Mittani Cushan link. The Kushara - Kushan link is the result, and seems more satisfying.

 

-------------------------------------

 

The Courville approach is that the Israelites are the MB1 invaders of Canaan. If one reads Mazar, and Kenyon, without concern for the dates they assign at least for the moment, I think one cannot help but see the remarkable connection between the MB1 people and the Israelites. That is the strength of Courville, and of Vern's neo-Courville, and Anati's connections, and Porter's connections. The connection is very impressive, and each additional insight into the MB1 people seems to strengthen the connection.

 

But is this consistent with putting the Exodus near the close of the 12th Dynasty? I believe it is -- others are reticent to mix the two solutions. -- David Rice

 

---

Summer concert season is here! Find your favorite artists on tour at TourTracker.com.