The Genesis Patriarchs as History

[TheOneAndOnly]

Has anyone been on this site http://www.genesispatriarchs.dk/.

Its by some Danish guy (its in English) whose tried to put the Biblical figures of Abraham, Isaac, Joseph et al. in a plausible historical framework.

Apparently the mysterious Nimrod, briefly mentioned in Genesis is none other than Sargon the Great of Akkad.

The Pharoah in Abraham and Sarah's adventures was the Old Kingdom Pharoah Pepi I:

" "When Abram entered Egypt the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful. And when the princes of Pharaoh saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house."8


Sarah was taken to the Pharaoh's harem and Abraham was rewarded.

That an older woman, of the contempted Asiatics, the sand-dwellers as the Egyptians named them, could be taken up into the harem of the Pharaoh, seems almost unthinkable. I can hardly see any other possibility here, than that the princes were Pepi I's vizier and chief judge, and that together they planned a state coup, with the purpose of bringing down Pepi I and thereafter crowning the vizier as the new Pharaoh. In Sarah, they saw an element to soil the honour of Pharaoh.
The trusted official of Pharaoh Pepi I, Unis, indicates in his biography that there was a notorious coup under way. But the coup was revealed and the coup's men were probably executed. A succeeding investigation in the royal harem is mentioned by Unis..."
end quote

The king Chedorlaomer mentioned in the Bible is actually the historical King Kheta of Elam (whoever he was?). Am'raphel is Sargon's grandson, Naram-Sin:

"I am convinced that Am'raphel of Shinar is identical to Naram-Sin of Sumer-Akkad, and Chedorlao'mer of Elam is the same as Naram-Sin's friend king Kheta of Elam. Naram-Sin was the only king at that time who would have been able to organise an occupation for twelve years of a land-area so far away, and so near to the other superpower Egypt. The peace-and-friendship treaty between Naram-Sin and Kheta (Hita) is absolutely unique. I will claim that this is the only possibility to fulfil the requirements in Genesis Chapter 14."
end quote

What do people who know about the Ancient ME think of this? I don't know that much about it but this site is pretty interesting.

[kofh2u]

Also, the entire genealogy is used to demonstrate an literary trick of organization of the facts found in Genesis, like names and years and such.
Tio little soace here to illustrate, but this is all related to the drama of presenting genesis orally, from memory,by the kohanim priets.

[JohnStevenson]

Its by some Danish guy (its in English) whose tried to put the Biblical figures of Abraham, Isaac, Joseph et al. in a plausible historical framework
By his own admission, he has no professional or educational background in either Biblical studies or in archaeology. It is my opinion that he makes some interesting points, but overall he seems to depend far too heavily upon circumstantial evidence.

[Dr T]

Yesterday @ 09:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=380603#post380603)
JohnStevenson:


By his own admission, he has no professional or educational background in either Biblical studies or in archaeology. It is my opinion that he makes some interesting points, but overall he seems to depend far too heavily upon circumstantial evidence.

Have you looked at 'A New Testament' by David Rohl?

[Solly]

David Rohl?? I thought he was onto something until his follow-up books came out - now he seems to be another Graham Hancock. Can you vouch for him Dr T??

[Dr T]

Today @ 11:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=383028#post383028)
Solly:

David Rohl?? I thought he was onto something until his follow-up books came out - now he seems to be another Graham Hancock. Can you vouch for him Dr T??

His first book "a Test of Time" seemed very good to me. It seemed to address genuine problems in the existing chronologies, and lead to a much closer relationship between the history in the OT and the Egyptian timelines.

For instance in the current chronology it would suggest that Jericho was abandoned at the time of Joshua, while agreeing that the record shows such events happening, just at a different time. Whereas the new chronology shows such an event happening in the right timescale.

Same sort fo thing for the court of King Soloman. In the old chronology Jerusalem was a backward place of no note, yet in the new chronology it was a rich and vibrate place as described in the OT, and indeed there are quotes from other scholars that described Jerusalem noting that it appeared just as in the OT but at a different time.

The new chronology has not been accepted by the establishment, but I haven't followed the logic behind this. I think that it is an interesting idea that has a lot going for it, but needs further research and quite likely some refinning.

I do know from other (very amateur) research that our knowledge of ancient times is very slender, and what you see presented in text books is one layer of assumptions built on top of another. One classic example of this is as follows:

In any history of the early imperial roman army it will state that 120 cavalry were attached to the legions. Yet there is only one written reference to 120 cavalry attached to any legions. That reference stated that in the Jewish war the 5(?) legions involved had 120 cavalry attached. The question has to be asked was this recorded becasue it was the norm, or because it was the exception? The author was writing for the benefit of the Romans of the day who presumably knew how the legions were set up.

The old chronology is built on many assumptions just as is the new chronology, but becasue the OC has been accepted as fact for so long there is a certain academic inertia that seems to even consider the NC.

"A new testament" is interesting, but deals with time so far back that there is little history to actual match too. However it is an attempt to match the OT to what is know of history by an actual scholar, which David Rohl is.

If David Rohl is to be believed, and I can't see why he would lie, he came to his conclusions in a Test of Time by looking at the know problems with the OC, together with new information found at various places in Egypt, not by trying to reconcile the OT to the historical record.

His approach was to document the known problems with the OC.
Detail the new information and suggested that the evidence matched a new chronology better than the old and didn't have the known problems with the OC.

This was all largely to do with pure Egyptian history, but the outcome of the change in dates put the events in the OT right in line with the chronology rather than at odds with it as it is currently.

Sorry for the ramble.

[Dr T]

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/judeoroots/rohl.htm

A far better description than mine.

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm

And again, but with some responses to the apparent problems with the new chronology.

[Solly]

thanks. Yes, i was intruiged by A Test of Time, esp as he does not appear to be making a case from a Christian point of view, correct me if I'm wrong.

It's the later stuff about the flood that rang alarm bells.

From Gene Roddenberry's spoof on network censors working on a script of the Bible for a teleplay: Suggest a fleet of arks.

[Dr T]

Today @ 02:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=383239#post383239)
Solly:

thanks. Yes, i was intruiged by A Test of Time, esp as he does not appear to be making a case from a Christian point of view, correct me if I'm wrong.

It's the later stuff about the flood that rang alarm bells.

From Gene Roddenberry's spoof on network censors working on a script of the Bible for a teleplay: Suggest a fleet of arks.

From the TV program and the book it was clear that the correlation between the new chronology and the OT was something that dropped out as a consequence of his work, rather than him trying to establish such a linkage.

From memory the thing that started all this was the discovery of a genelogical chart carved in a quarry site. This chart covered a number of known people but gave a different timescale for them.
Too few generations to cover the accepted difference in time. After that he started to look at the established chronology in light of this chart, was it wrong or could a case be made for it being correct. From that further research has lead to a whole new chronology being put forward.

Interestingly the old chronology rules out many of the events from exodus onwards as detailed in the Bible, yet the old chronology relies on the Bible to set a key marker date.

This is making a connection between an Egyptian pharaoh in Egyptian records and within the Bible. Part of a test of Time gives the reasons why the OC takes one particular choice, and then suggests why another choice may be better and examines what this leads to. What it leads to is a far better fit with OT history.

I think DR put this stuff forward as a conjecture, which some people have taken up and forward. I think originally he was clear that this was a theory with a lot of work required, but the establishment reacted very badly, and sides have become entrenched.

The later stuff is interesting, but is much more speculative as it is dealing with much earlier times.

[Dr T]

June 2000
David Rohl and Peter van der Veen got together to prepare the following document for new NC list members in the hope that it would provide an easy-to-understand summary of what the New Chronology is all about.

Pillars of the New Chronology
(David Rohl and Peter van der Veen model)

Methodological Standpoint:

(A) The biblical text should not be rejected as an historical source without first testing the 'historical' contents against the archaeological record. However, the archaeological record needs to have a reliable and well defined chronology which, at this time, we do not believe is the case.

(B) The later chronology of the Old Testament has proved to be substantially correct when tested against the external evidence of Assyria and Babylonia. Furthermore, a limited number of texts from Palestine confirm the historical background of the kings of Israel as portrayed in Kings and Chronicles _ including the actual names of biblical kings and their officials. The question therefore
is not whether the Old Testament is a reliable historical source but for how far back in time is it a reliable historical source?

(C) A reassessment of the chronological duration of the Egyptian TIP has brought us to the position where we feel that we can make a positive contribution to this important biblical question.

A Basic Outline of the New Chronology

1. The entry of the proto-Israelites into Egypt took place in the late 12th Dynasty.

2. More specifically, Joseph was a vizier under the co-regent pharaohs Senuseret III and Amenemhat III.

3. The Asiatic settlement of Avaris, founded in the reign of Amenemhat III (located at what is now the village of Tell ed-Daba in the eastern Delta), represents the settlement of Jacob and his sons.This extended family formed the original nucleus of the Asiatic population in Avaris.

4. The biblical tradition of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt is a memory of this Asiatic movement into the Eastern Delta during the late Middle Kingdom and early Second Intermediate Period _specifically the late 12th & 13th Dynasties.

5. Domestic slaves attested in documents of the period have typical Israelite names which in this New Chronology are in reality personalities from the Sojourn period, whereas in the Old Chronology they represent pre-Israelite Canaanites living in Egypt.

6. The Exodus of the Israelites took place towards the end of the 13th Dynasty which correlates with the abandonment of the Israelite quarter at Tell ed-Daba (Stratum G) and the contemporary death pits discovered at the site.

7. The tradition, reflected in the works of Artapanus, that Moses was raised by Pharaoh Khenofres is regarded by the New Chronology as fixing the lifetime of Moses to the era from Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV (Khenophres) to Dudimose(Tutimaeus).

8. Following the work of Wayne Mitchell, the most convincing Venus Solution for Year 1 of Ammisaduga of Babylon is 1419 BC. Through a network of synchronisms - Hammurabi (Ammisaduga's distant predecessor) to Zimrilim of Mari to Yantin-Ammu of Byblos to Neferhotep I of Egypt (the brother and predecessor of Sobekhotep IV) - the date for Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV can be approximately determined as 1527 BC. This date is consistent with the biblical date for Moses' birth.

9. Likewise, Manetho's Tutimaeus, identified here with Dudimose, becomes the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

10. The destruction of MB IIB Jericho is equated with the destruction of Jericho by Joshua and the Israelites.

11. Following the work of John Bimson, the destruction of numerous Canaanite cities in the MB IIB period represents the true archaeological setting for the military conquest and settlement of the Israelite tribes in Canaan.

12. Again, using the work of Wayne Mitchell, the Ugarit eclipse attested on tablet KTU 1.78 is most likely datable to 1012 BC, assuming that (a) the tablet records a genuine solar eclipse, (b) that the text describes a near sunset eclipse and that (c) the tablet is archaeologically linked to the destruction of Niqmaddu II's palace
reported to Akhenaten in the latter's 12th year by Abimilku of Tyre. We strongly believe that the translation of the tablet which gives a near sunset eclipse in the month of Ayyaru is the most reasonable interpretation of this document.

13. Working the chronology backwards from the TIP, the New Chronology theory places Year 12 of Akhenaten in 1011 BC. The astronomically derived date thus appears to support the historically derived date determined by the New Chronology. There is no astronomical support for a c. 1350 BC date for Akhenaten on the basis of what we believe to be the correct translation of the Ugarit tablet.

14. The evidence from a Karnak relief dating to the 19th Dynasty strongly suggest that the 'Israel' of the Merenptah Stela was capable of chariot warfare which in turn places the military conflict between Egypt and Israel in the United Monarchy Period or later. The Old Testament clearly establishes the first use of chariotry in the reign of Solomon.

15. Shoshenk I is not Shishak because (a) from the internal Egyptian evidence (genealogies) he cannot be dated earlier than 850 BC and (b), through links to statue inscriptions from Byblos, he reigned only three generations (of 20 years each) before Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BC), i.e. 60 years + c. 745 BC = c. 805 BC. Furthermore, (c) the Shoshenk I campaign inscription in no way compares to the biblical narratives dealing with the campaign of Shishak.

16. The earliest established date in Egyptian chronology is year 1 of Taharka = 690 BC. This is based on his 26th and last year being tied to 664 BC and the Assyrian sack of Thebes.

17. From 664 BC onwards the Orthodox and New Chronologies generally coincide.

These seventeen points are the main pillars of the New Chronology (as accepted by most NC revisionists). However, there is a rich tapestry of further detail and numerous issues of interest/contention which elaborate upon the basic framework. The inner workings of this fascinating chronological and historical revision are regularly debated here in the eGroups.com New Chronology seminar.

[Solly]

Thanks for that Doc.

Slightly off tangent, does Rohl have anything to say on the New Route idea of the exodus, placing the crossing on the other side of Sinai?

[Dr T]

Today @ 03:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=383472#post383472)
Solly:

Thanks for that Doc.

Slightly off tangent, does Rohl have anything to say on the New Route idea of the exodus, placing the crossing on the other side of Sinai?

Not that I know of.

Just continuing the previous stuff, Rohl's work is important even if it turns out to be incorrect (which in detail it is likely to be), as it is forcing a new look at the existing chronology (which has lots of problems anyway), and there have been other chronologies put forward since. The thing that surprises me is the sheer ferocity of the establishment, which has stifled a real debate on the issue.

[Solly]

I remember the TV programme; Kitchen seems to be to the fore in critiquing the NC. But conservatism rules in whatever field I suppose, I remember reading a fictional account of a 19th century physicist perfecting his theory of Ether just as the first inklings of relativity began to come out, and he saw his life's work going down history's flushable convenience. Cognitive dissonance and all that.

[kofh2u]

GENETIC EVIDENCE:

I again remind you of the Kohanim priesthood.

I assumed that you people posting here were knowledgeable about the matter of chronological details supported from genetic investigations.

Perhaps if I merely mention the facts, you or others will recall the details. If necessary I will supply the source of my reference.

In short, Moses utilized a particular group of Levites (The Kohanim) in a very special way. They were a all members of one of the three Levite clans. Although these lay priests have an as of yet unrecognized importance (I might say, superimportance) to our understanding of what happened in 32AD, I will just skip to their significance in this issue of chronology.

We are told that 72 Hebew patriarchs entered Egypt, and that @ 400 years later, the progeny of those 72 Hebrews were collected for the Exodus. The problem is that we have no reliable time frame for either of these two details as described in the OT.

However, we do have the descendants of these levite priests, the Kohanim.

In fact, these lay priest have continued throughout the long history since Moses, actively participating in synagogue services,.. to this very day.

They are recognized as continous, genetically related to all other Kohanim, by the reliability of their ancestral family name, by the hard evidence of the hearldry carved on tombstones found in Jewish graveyards everywhere, and by recent genetic tests.

These men have been subjected to genetic testing in order to substantiate their unbelieved claim of a continuity with all Jews surnamed Cohen.

I am sure you recall that this was all a curiosity of popular interest @ 5 years ago, even a feature editorial in Time Magazine, I believe.

The point is, that genetics confirms 3000 years of similarity among all Jews with the name Cohen. Now, since their priesthood was created with/by Moses, we can measure this 3000 year genetic evidence as corresponding to @ 1000 BC and the arrival of Israel and his 71 men to be @ 1400 BC.

Research this, I am rushed right now, short of tine... surely, you get tge general idea. The Cihens arevLiving Proof that Exodus was 3000 years ago.

[Socratism]

I would agree that the material you cite is supportive that Exodus was historical, but have my doubts that it verifies the timescale as precisely as you imply.

[Lion]

This discussion has been very interesting and informative. I happen to have a strong belief that the gilgamesh epic is a distortion of the story as recorded in the book of Genesis. It has all the hallmarks of many gods battling over who will win, while the one creator God is woven all through Genesis. In short, Gilgamesh is full of mythology, while Genesis has only one God.

As far as the flood is concerned the earth is full of evidence that a worldwide flood happened if you can divorce yourself from the evolutionary dogma.

It is natural that the date of the exodus would be shrouded in mystery. Remember that the death of the firstborn affected the royal succession. Pharaoh drowned and the second son had to assume the position.

As to the route of the Israelites across the red sea, I have a book in my library called the Gold of Exodus, by Howard Blum, published in 1998. It tells the story of Cornuke and Williams who wandered on the Arabia side of the red sea and found evidence that the Israelites had indeed camped there, and just over the ridge was a mountan the Saudis call Jebel al Lawz Both. the camp site and the mountain are fenced off as archeological sites. The plain on the east side of Jebel al Lawz has room for a large encampment, while the traditional mount Sinai hasn’t room for a large encampment.

In EX 14:3 God told Moses Pharaoh would say the israelites are wandering aimlessly in the desert, because they were going south, an indication they were headed toward the strait at the end of the gulf of Aquaba, which agrees with the story.

[Sacrificial Ram]

This discussion has been very interesting and informative. I happen to have a strong belief that the gilgamesh epic is a distortion of the story as recorded in the book of Genesis. It has all the hallmarks of many gods battling over who will win, while the one creator God is woven all through Genesis. In short, Gilgamesh is full of mythology, while Genesis has only one God.

As far as the flood is concerned the earth is full of evidence that a worldwide flood happened if you can divorce yourself from the evolutionary dogma.

It is natural that the date of the exodus would be shrouded in mystery. Remember that the death of the firstborn affected the royal succession. Pharaoh drowned and the second son had to assume the position.

As to the route of the Israelites across the red sea, I have a book in my library called the Gold of Exodus, by Howard Blum, published in 1998. It tells the story of Cornuke and Williams who wandered on the Arabia side of the red sea and found evidence that the Israelites had indeed camped there, and just over the ridge was a mountan the Saudis call Jebel al Lawz Both. the camp site and the mountain are fenced off as archeological sites. The plain on the east side of Jebel al Lawz has room for a large encampment, while the traditional mount Sinai hasn’t room for a large encampment.

In EX 14:3 God told Moses Pharaoh would say the israelites are wandering aimlessly in the desert, because they were going south, an indication they were headed toward the strait at the end of the gulf of Aquaba, which agrees with the story.
You do realise that it is a 'pop adventury story' , rather than archeology.

[Lion]

I realize it is an adventure story. But adventure or not, others have had the same idea of the red sea crossing there and the Saudis have fenced off the area to prevent entry. That much is fact and I have map clearly labeling Jebel el Lawz.

[mikeledo]

Has anyone been on this site http://www.genesispatriarchs.dk/.

Its by some Danish guy (its in English) whose tried to put the Biblical figures of Abraham, Isaac, Joseph et al. in a plausible historical framework.

Apparently the mysterious Nimrod, briefly mentioned in Genesis is none other than Sargon the Great of Akkad.

The Pharoah in Abraham and Sarah's adventures was the Old Kingdom Pharoah Pepi I:

" "When Abram entered Egypt the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful. And when the princes of Pharaoh saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house."8


Sarah was taken to the Pharaoh's harem and Abraham was rewarded.

That an older woman, of the contempted Asiatics, the sand-dwellers as the Egyptians named them, could be taken up into the harem of the Pharaoh, seems almost unthinkable. I can hardly see any other possibility here, than that the princes were Pepi I's vizier and chief judge, and that together they planned a state coup, with the purpose of bringing down Pepi I and thereafter crowning the vizier as the new Pharaoh. In Sarah, they saw an element to soil the honour of Pharaoh.
The trusted official of Pharaoh Pepi I, Unis, indicates in his biography that there was a notorious coup under way. But the coup was revealed and the coup's men were probably executed. A succeeding investigation in the royal harem is mentioned by Unis..."
end quote

The king Chedorlaomer mentioned in the Bible is actually the historical King Kheta of Elam (whoever he was?). Am'raphel is Sargon's grandson, Naram-Sin:

"I am convinced that Am'raphel of Shinar is identical to Naram-Sin of Sumer-Akkad, and Chedorlao'mer of Elam is the same as Naram-Sin's friend king Kheta of Elam. Naram-Sin was the only king at that time who would have been able to organise an occupation for twelve years of a land-area so far away, and so near to the other superpower Egypt. The peace-and-friendship treaty between Naram-Sin and Kheta (Hita) is absolutely unique. I will claim that this is the only possibility to fulfil the requirements in Genesis Chapter 14."
end quote

What do people who know about the Ancient ME think of this? I don't know that much about it but this site is pretty interesting.
It is actually closer to the truth than most chrologies, but has some problems. Hittites lived with Abraham. They did not exist during the age of Sargon I. In order for this to work, they must be a redaction. Abraham and Issac were most likely based on kings of Ebla. Sargon I and Moses birth narratives both stem from the same cosmic myth. This would make Moses and Sargon as cosmic equals as both also conquered the Amorites. Sargon's sons are represented in the Bible by Abimelich and Jotham. One son was killed by a blow to the head, then the other one ruled. Naram Sin is none other than David. David's love for Bethsheba is a cosmic myth for Sin's love of Ishtar. The death of Uriah is the death of Ishtar's lover at the autumnal equinox, represented by Antares in front of the archer's bow.

Pepi II would have been the pharaoh for both Joseph and the first pharaoh for Moses. He reigned during the Great Famine when Asians came to Egypy for food and when the plagues infected the land. The end of the EB civilizations is attributed to a meteor(s) striking the earth. Ancient astrologers claim it came from Draco (the serpent-later Satan). In later Biblical writings, this event would become prophecy for the future as the star "Wormwood" with armies from the north (Draco) attacking Israel. In Egypt this event also became part of its religion/mythology. In Egypt the constellation Draco was represented by Hathor, who once tried to destroy the earth. The gods laced the Nile with mandrake and turned it red. Hathor thought it was beer, drank and passed out. In Greece it was Kore.

[Lion]

That Danish guy belongs in the trash heap. To relegate the scripture stories to fiction is to deny the accuracy of the word of inspiration. I have no idea who some of the Egyptian kings were, or some of the others were.

The Bible is concerned with God’s dealings with man and how man reacts to God. Other contacts are incidental. The plagues of Egypt were real and were directed at objects that were worshipped by the Egyptians. They were God’s attempt to convince the Egyptians that their gods were not as powerful as the priests said.