Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Great King Jeroboam II missing from Chronicles



 

by
 
Damien F. Mackey

 
 
Reading through the accounts of the kings of Israel in Kings and Chronicles,
I was really surprised to find that Jeroboam II does not figure in Chronicles.
 
 
Suspecting this morning (16th September, 2019), once again, that there may be some degree of duplication amongst the listings of the kings of Israel of the Divided Monarchy period, which thought prompted me later today to write:
 
Bible Bashing Baasha problem king of Israel. Part One: Reprising my earlier Baasha View
 
https://www.academia.edu/40361733/Bible_Bashing_Baasha_problem_king_of_Israel._Part_One_Reprising_my_earlier_Baasha_view
 
and then reading through the accounts of the kings of Israel in Kings and Chronicles, I was really surprised to find that Jeroboam II does not figure in Chronicles.
That I was not mistaken or deluding myself about this was confirmed when I read introductory parts of Todd Bolen’s thesis (2002):
 
The Reign of Jeroboam II: A Historical and Archaeological Interpretation
 
https://www.academia.edu/1644551/The_Reign_of_Jeroboam_II_A_Historical_and_Archaeological_Interpretation
 
For instance, Bolen commences by writing of the scant treatment of Jeroboam II in the entire Scriptures despite the king’s undoubted importance:
 
It has long been recognized that some of the most defining political and military events received little attention from the theologically-oriented writer of the Scriptures. Jeroboam II was one such king whose importance to Israel’s political history went virtually unnoticed in the biblical record. Though he ruled longer than any other king of the north, the Scriptures accord him one of the briefest treatments of all kings (2 Kings 14:23-29). Much of this record is not unique to Jeroboam, but simply repeats the standard formulaic denunciation of wicked rulers.
 
The most peculiar feature of the biblical record of Jeroboam’s rule is its report of his territorial expansion: “He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah.... He recovered for Israel both Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Judah” (2 Kings 14:25, 28). Typical assessments of Jeroboam’s reign extrapolate this note of northern expansion to include unprecedented glory, wealth, and prosperity for the nation of Israel. Conversely, recent attempts have been made to reject all suggestions of material prosperity or territorial expansion under Jeroboam II.
 
This study assesses the rule of Jeroboam II by first considering his historical background. The devastating oppression by the Arameans in the days before Jeroboam came to the throne are the backdrop for the expressions of expansion and wealth. Assyrian campaigns against Damascus reversed the fortunes of the southern Levant at the beginning of the eighth century B.C., and allowed Israel to rebound from a time of territorial oppression and economic poverty. The geographical references are studied in order to best understand the precise extent of Jeroboam’s kingdom to the north, east, and south. The conclusion of this study is that by the latter half of Jeroboam’s reign, Hamath and Damascus were paying regular tribute to Israel, much of Transjordan was under Israelite control, and the nation of Judah was an ally.
 
The archaeological record of the first half of the eighth century reveals a period of renewed construction and some measure of material prosperity. However, the current state of archaeological research does not support the position that Jeroboam’s kingdom was wealthier than the kingdom of Ahab. Analysis of the excavations at Hazor, Tirzah, Dan, Samaria, and Megiddo indicate that Israel at this time experienced a resurgence, and specific material finds at these sites reflect a degree of prosperity that appears limited primarily to the upper class.
The Samaria ostraca attest to an administrative system in Jeroboam’s coregent years whereby governmental officials were given land grants to meet their needs while residing at the king’s table at the capital. An understanding of the society of Jeroboam’s day is completed with a study of Amos’ and Hosea’s records of the Israelites’ religious and social failures.
 
Then Bolen, in his Introduction to Chapter I, will proceed to tell of this startling fact: “Chronicles does not so much as hint of his existence, even in regnal synchronisms”:
 
For slightly over two hundred years, the northern kingdom of Israel survived as a sovereign nation in the tumultuous ancient Near East. Situated amidst larger and stronger powers, Israel was easily affected by the political forces and movements of the empires and powers around her. Within the relatively short span of two hundred years, Israel endured devastating conquest by the Egyptians, exacting tribute payments to the Assyrians, crushing oppression by the Arameans, damning idolatrous influence from the Phoenicians, but rarely satisfying independence.
 
After Jeroboam ben Nebat led the northern tribes away from a united kingdom with Judah, Israel would never again hold the territorial dominion that it enjoyed under David and Solomon, save perhaps one time. Control of the trade routes would often be contested, and Israel would frequently be on the losing end. The history of this nation was not one in which to take great pride; its existence was marked by foreign oppression, dynastic usurpations and rival reigns.
 
The characteristics of Jeroboam II’s rule were not unlike those of his nation; it was not an era of uniform prosperity, peaceful coexistence, or popular satisfaction. His age was one marked by both blessings and curses, rises and falls, successes and failures, prosperity and adversity. The unvaried character sometimes attributed to the first half of the eighth century BC is unfounded. Israelite society reflected a wide range of events, circumstances and feelings, and Jeroboam’s reign was anything but static.
 
The first half of the eighth century was not a replication, however, of any other period of Israel’s existence. No king of Israel ruled longer than Jeroboam II, and no dynasty had as many monarchs sit on the throne as did that of Jeroboam’s forebear, Jehu. Jeroboam’s rule stands in stark contrast to that of his predecessors and successors. The half-century before him witnessed the most violent and trying time of persecution Israel had ever faced. Beaten down so that they were like “dust at threshing time,” the apostate rulers of Israel ultimately sought out even the Lord for salvation (2 Kgs 13:7). The last half of the ninth century was most unlike the period of expansion and economic growth that Jeroboam fostered, and the stability that he established would be unknown after his death. In the period following Jeroboam, a duration shorter than Jeroboam’s reign, the country would have six rulers, four of them dying violent deaths. In fact, the Israelite nation under Jeroboam experienced an age that was unique - both in strength and stability.
 
Without the brief record in the Book of Kings and cursory mentions in two prophetic works, the name of this man would not be preserved (2 Kgs 14:23-15:8; Amos 1:1; 7:9-11; Hos 1:1). Even the parallel account of the history of the Divided Monarchy neglects to mention Jeroboam, even in passing.
Chronicles does not so much as hint of his existence, even in regnal synchronisms. This king of unusually long reign and reported strong position is not attested to in Assyrian, Aramean, Hamathite, Babylonian, or Egyptian annals or inscriptions. Furthermore, the known history of the ancient Near East for his period is surprisingly sparse; very little has been preserved. The extent of the historical record is related in the Book of Kings:
 
In the fifteenth year of Amaziah son of Joash king of Judah, Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel became king in Samaria, and he reigned forty-one years. He did evil in the eyes of the LORD and did not turn away from any of the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit. He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, in accordance with the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher. The LORD had seen how bitterly everyone in Israel, whether slave or free, was suffering; there was no one to help them. And since the LORD had not said he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Jehoash. As for the other events of Jeroboam’s reign, all he did, and his military achievements, including how he recovered for Israel both Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Judah, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? Jeroboam rested with his fathers, the kings of Israel. And Zechariah his son succeeded him as king. (2 Kgs 14:23-29 NIV4)
 
The sources for Jeroboam’s forty-year reign are, unfortunately, not only brief but sketchy as well. Very few details about his military accomplishments, economic prosperity, or administrative ability are known. The extrabiblical sources for this period of time are also very limited. Jeroboam’s father is recorded as having paid tribute to the Assyrians a few years prior to Jeroboam’s accession. The usurper of the throne of Jeroboam’s son also received mention for a similar action some ten years after Jeroboam’s death. The Samaria Ostraca likely date to the time of Jeroboam, but their interpretation and implications are somewhat unclear. The Zakkur and Pazarcik stelae both record contemporaneous events, but far to the north of Israelite territory. Assyrian annals concentrate on the troublesome events of home, and any western excursions receive very little detail. No inscriptions have been found from the smaller nations neighboring Israel.
 
The prophets Amos and Hosea both date at least a portion of their oracles to the reign of Jeroboam. Amos’ work is particularly valuable as he details the oppression of the lower class. His sharp remarks, pointed denunciations, and predictions of judgment undoubtedly reflect the Israelite society during this period. Also, Amos is unique in specifically condemning the Israelite monarch for his wickedness (7:9-11). Hosea appears to have begun his prophetic ministry during the reign of Jeroboam (1:1), but his words are more general in nature. ….
[End of quote]
 
Bolen’s opening remark, “that some of the most defining political and military events received little attention from the theologically-oriented writer of the Scriptures”, may not necessarily be entirely true. Jeroboam so-called II may figure more prominently in the Scriptures than is thought – but under an alter ego.
A good place to begin to look for that would be, I suggest, with namesake Jeroboam I.

Great King Omri missing from Chronicles









 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey




 

 

 

“The royal dynasties of Israel and Judah are usually designated as 'founders' houses', i.e. Saul's house, David's house, Jeroboam's house, Baasha's house, and Jehu's house.

Yet the name Omri's house is conspicuously missing from the Bible.

Instead, the same dynasty is always called Ahab's house, although Omri was

the dynastic founder and Ahab was his successor”.

 

T. Ishida

 

 

 

 

Suspecting yesterday morning (16th September, 2019), once again, that there may be some degree of duplication amongst the listings of the kings of Israel of the Divided Monarchy period, which thought prompted me later that day to write:

 


 


 

and then reading through the accounts of the kings of Israel in Kings and Chronicles, I was really surprised to find that Omri does not figure directly in Chronicles.

That I was not mistaken or deluding myself about this was confirmed when I read the following in Wilfred J. Hahn’s article “Omri: The Merger King”:


 

King Omri was one of the most influential kings of the northern kingdom of Israel. It would be difficult to discern this from the Bible alone without careful study. As only 13 verses (1 Kings 16:16-28) recount the history of this man, it would be easy to overlook his significance. Unusually, no direct mention is even made of his reign in the books of Chronicles, apart from referring to his son, Ahab, and grandsons Ahaziah and Joram. The only biblical indication we get of the repute of his legacy is found in Micah 6:16.

 

[End of quote]

 

Another famous name amongst the kings of Israel (Divided Kingdom) who is missing from Chronicles, as we found (in a partner to this present article), is Jeroboam so-called II:

 

Great King Jeroboam II missing from Chronicles

 


 

Regarding this surprising omission I noted “that some of the most defining political and military events received little attention from the theologically-oriented writer of the Scriptures” ... may not necessarily be entirely true. Jeroboam so-called II may figure more prominently in the Scriptures than is thought – but under an alter ego.

A good place to begin to look for that would be, I suggest, with namesake Jeroboam I”.

 

And now I am going to suggest the very same thing, that we may need to begin to look for the - seemingly neglected in the Scriptures, but undoubtedly famous - Omri (qua “Omri”) under the guise of my now amalgamated Jeroboam I/II.

That Omri, currently designated as the sixth king of Israel (Divided Kingdom):

 

Jeroboam I
Nadab
Baasha
Elah
Zimri
Omri

 

needs to be located significantly earlier than this is quite apparent from the fact that Omri was involved in war with Ben-Hadad I’s father, Tab-rimmon, who was, in turn (it can be estimated), a contemporary of Asa’s father, Abijah.

I Kings 15:18: “Asa then took all the silver and gold that was left in the treasuries of the Lord’s temple and of his own palace. He entrusted it to his officials and sent them to Ben-Hadad son of Tabrimmon”. That this Tab-rimmon had warred with Ahab’s father, Omri, is apparent from Ben-Hadad’s statement to Ahab in I Kings 20:34: “So Ben-Hadad said to [Ahab], ‘The cities which my father took from your father I will restore; and you may set up marketplaces for yourself in Damascus, as my father did in Samaria’.”

 

King Omri of Israel, whose fame extended down even to the neo-Assyrian period - referred to by the Assyrian kings as “House of Omri (Bīt Humri) - did not need for the Scriptures also to mention an “Omri’s house”, because the king already had his “Jeroboam’s house”.

 

Thus Omri was actually the first, not the sixth, king of Israel (Divided Monarchy).

 

The Statutes of Omri





 by

Damien F. Mackey
 
 
“For the statutes of Omri are kept, and all the works of the house of Ahab,
and you walk in their counsels; that I should make you a desolation, and the inhabitants
thereof an hissing: therefore you shall bear the reproach of my people”.
 
Micah 6:16


With the obscure King Omri (qua Omri) now expanded as my combined Jeroboam I and II:




Great King Omri missing from Chronicles


then it becomes somewhat clearer what may have been “the statutes of Omri” as referred to by the prophet Micah. They were the unorthodox religious laws and teachings of Jeroboam I. And they had much of their inspiration from Egypt, where Jeroboam lived prior to his reign in Israel. King Jeroboam even uses the very same description of his golden calves that the MBI Israelites had used of theirs in the desert:

Cf.
(Exodus 32:4): ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt’.

(I Kings 12:28): ‘Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt’.

Here, then, are the statutes of Omri = Jeroboam (I Kings 12:26-33):

Jeroboam thought to himself, ‘The kingdom will now likely revert to the house of David. If these people go up to offer sacrifices at the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem, they will again give their allegiance to their lord, Rehoboam king of Judah. They will kill me and return to King Rehoboam’.
After seeking advice, the king made two golden calves. He said to the people, ‘It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt’. One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. And this thing became a sin; the people came to worship the one at Bethel and went as far as Dan to worship the other.
Jeroboam built shrines on high places and appointed priests from all sorts of people, even though they were not Levites. He instituted a festival on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the festival held in Judah, and offered sacrifices on the altar. This he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves he had made. And at Bethel he also installed priests at the high places he had made. On the fifteenth day of the eighth month, a month of his own choosing, he offered sacrifices on the altar he had built at Bethel. So he instituted the festival for the Israelites and went up to the altar to make offerings.


Micah compares, but also distinguishes between, “the statutes of Omri … and all the works of the house of Ahab”.
For, as we read in the above-mentioned article, Omri and Ahab - though universally thought to ha

Shalmaneser III and V






 

 
by
 
Damien F. Mackey
 
 
 
  
 
“… there is no known relief depiction of Shalmaneser V …”. 
 

 
 
 
With that particular quote, on a previous occasion, I had introduced my brief article:
 
Shalmaneser V and Nebuchednezzar II were 'camera-shy'?
 
 
While it might reasonably be expected that ancient kings to whom great deeds are attributed - as is the case with Shalmaneser V (despite his supposedly short reign) and, far more especially, with Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ - would have abundant statues and relief depictions dedicated to them, it was found in the above article that there is virtually nothing of this nature for these two kings combined.  
 
That irregular situation, to my way of thinking, screams out the need for alter egos.
And these I have provided in abundance for Nebuchednezzar, for example in my article:
 
Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part Two: Merging late neo-Assyrians with Chaldeans
 
 
Various of the alter egos whom I have attached to Nebuchednezzar in this article can boast of numerous statues and relief depictions.
 
The separate issue of the neo-Assyrian king, Shalmaneser so-called V, and who else he might have been, has arisen in a recent exchange of e-mails I have had with a would-be revisionist, who has sent me his hopeful revision of Assyrian history. (Yet another one of these!)
He wrote in part:
 
Hello Dr. [sic] Mackey,
 
I've been enjoying your series on academia.com.
 
Here is the key to the Assyrian King List.  It is, like Manetho, dynasties by city, which are in parallel.  
...
Shalmaneser III is Shalmaneser V ....
 
 
Without my yet knowing very much about what this correspondent has come up with, I thought that I needed to fire off this note of caution – though not intending to dampen any enthusiasm?
 
.... It is no easy task .... I'll tell you why - you may already have realised this.
Shamaneser III has been an enormous problem for me and indeed for others.
It is one thing to say that he is Shalmaneser V, who I think he is, but quite another to show how the long reign of III can be squared off against the very short reign (conventionally speaking) of V. 
(I personally would enlarge V to embrace also Tiglath-pileser III).
You need to be able to explain the Black Obelisk of III now in your revised context. Who, for instance, is the apparent king of Israel mentioned there?
And how do the recorded names of participants in the Battle of Karkar (Qarqar), opponents of III, fit into your revised scenario?
These are only some of the issues with which you would be faced. Not sufficient simply to declare that Assyrian king X = Assyrian king Y.
 
For reasons such as the above I have held off so far with a revision of Shalmaneser so-called III. ....https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif

Sunday, September 8, 2019

Job not a near contemporary of Abraham



Image result for pharaoh per-aa 

First Dynastic Ruler of Egypt


Part One:
An era of biblico-historical luminaries

by
Damien F. Mackey
 
“In all likelihood Egypt used northern Sinai as a springboard for forcing her way into Canaan with the result that all of southern Canaan became an Egyptian domain”.
Dr. John Osgood
We customarily tend to refer to the early rulers of Egypt as “Pharaoh”, even though this is actually a Greek word (φαραώ), based on an Egyptian phrase: https://www.ancient.eu/pharaoh/
The word 'pharaoh’ is the Greek form of the Egyptian pero or per-a-a, which was the designation for the royal residence and means `Great House'. The name of the residence became associated with the ruler and, in time, was used exclusively for the leader of the people.
And the term was applied to the rulers of the great nation only at a late stage in Egypt’s dynastic history.
Tradition accredits “Menes” with being the unifying founder of Egyptian dynastic history, the first ruler of the First Dynasty.
And some suggest that Menes was the same as Hor-Aha, whose nebty name was Min, or Men. For instance: http://www.ancient-egypt.info/2012/02/hor-aha-and-founding-of-memphis.html
Hor-Aha … took the nebti name (the second royal name: p. 218) of Men, which means 'established', and this could be the origin of the later record of the first king as being called Menes. For present purposes we may look on Hor-Aha as the first king of the 1st Dynasty. An interesting piece of evidence is a small broken ivory label found in the tomb of Queen Nithotep at Naqada. Although schematically represented, the busy scene on this tiny piece seems to show two humans celebrating a ceremony called 'Receiving the South and the North' over an unidentified object (possibly the first representation of the later symbolic tying of papyrus and lotus stalks).

….

The king's name, meaning 'Fighting Hawk' - an allusion again to Horus - indicates his Upper Egyptian origin and rule. His adoption of Men as his nebti name for ruling over both parts is indicated on the ivory label by the fact that his Horus name (his first and principal name, p. 218) Hor-Aha, and his nebti name, Men, appear side by side. Other similar small labels from Early Dynastic tombs indicate that his was not an easy reign. There were campaigns to be fought and rebels to be subdued in Nubia, recorded on a wooden label from Abydos, and another label records his foundation of a temple to the goddess Neith at Sais in the Delta. Her warlike aspect was signified by a pair of crossed arrows and her worship continued into Roman times when she was identified with Athena at Sais. ….
For more on Neith (Athena), see my series:
Neith a goddess of greatest antiquity
That Menes and Hor-Aha were one and the same potentate is a view that I, too, favour, along with a tradition that Menes was the (somewhat ill-fated) pharaoh of Abram (= Abraham).
To that mix I have added that Menes/Hor-Aha was the biblical “Abimelech”.
An earlier article of mine on these biblico-historical correspondences has been picked up at: https://thepharaohofabraham.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/the-genealogy-of-israel-according-to-scripture/
…. Finally, whether the one whom Isaac calls “Abimelech” was still, in Isaac’s day, “Pharaoh” of Egypt, as he had been in former times, he was most definitely at least ruler over the Philistines at Gerar. Perhaps he ruled both lands, Egypt and Philistia. Be that as it may, the Holy Spirit has apparently provided the name of Abram’s “Pharaoh”. But one needs to respect His literary structures to discover that name. We now know his personal name: “Abimelech”.
In Hebrew it means “Father is King”.
Since Abimelech is not an Egyptian name, though (see discussion of this in 2. below), and since the other designation that we have for him is simply “Pharaoh”, that data, in itself, will not take us the next step of being able to identify this ruler in the Egyptian historical (or dynastic) records. But that our Abimelech may have – according to the progression of Ishmael’s and Isaac’s toledôt histories – ruled Egypt and then gone on
to rule Philistia, could well enable us to locate this ruler archaeologically.
Dr. John Osgood has already done much of the ‘spade work’ for us here, firstly by nailing the archaeology of En-geddi at the time of Abram (in the context of Genesis 14) to the Late Chalcolithic period, corresponding to Ghassul IV in Palestine’s southern Jordan Valley; Stratum V at Arad; and the Gerzean period in Egypt (“The Times of Abraham”, Ex Nihilo TJ, Vol. 2, 1986, pp. 77-87); and secondly by showing that, immediately following this period, there was a migration out of Egypt into Philistia, bringing an entirely new culture (= Early Bronze I, Stratum IV at Arad).
P. 86: “In all likelihood Egypt used northern Sinai as a springboard for forcing her way into Canaan with the result that all of southern Canaan became an Egyptian domain”.
This new phase would seem to correspond very nicely with the time of Narmer,
since, at this very archaeological phase, according to Osgood (ibid., p. 85):
Belonging to Stratum IV [at Arad] Amiram found a sherd with the name of Narmer …”. ….
[End of quote]
How might this Narmer fit into this new scheme of things?
Without my claiming to be certain about it, I personally like the thought that Narmer may have been the Akkadian ruler, Naram-Sin:
Narmer a Contemporary of Patriarch Abraham. Part Two: Narmer as Naram Sin
What would strengthen this correspondence, at least chronologically, is W. F. Albright’s remarkable thesis that Naram-Sin had actually conquered Menes of Egypt:
Dr. W.F. Albright’s Game-Changing Chronological Shift
All of this, if correct, would mean that, around c. 1900 BC (a conventional dating for Abram) we have a veritable clash of titans: Naram-Sin of Akkad, Menes of Egypt, and Patriarch Abram. Not to mention Melchizedek of Salem and Chedorlaomer of Elam, and so on.
A glimpse of this remarkable age has even been projected into a false C6th AD time warp:
Chedorlaomer and Chlodomer


I suspect that there may be much, much more to Naram-Sin the Akkadian than meets the eye.
For one, Naram-Sin strikes me now as being the stand-out candidate for the enigmatic biblical “Amraphel … king of Shinar”, contemporary of Abram. (Genesis 14:1). See e.g. my article:
Narmer a Contemporary of Patriarch Abraham. Part Three: (Narmer) Naram Sin as Amraphel

Part Two:

Best biblico-historical (Egyptian) syncretisms

“According to historians, King Aha ruled Egypt early after the unification of Egypt (Tyldesley, 2009, p. 22), and would have held sway over essentially all the available land. This shows that the civilization of Egypt had already developed to the point of having a powerful pharaoh who obviously had a reputation for ruthlessness as indicated by Abraham’s fear of him”.

Anne Habermehl 


A-ha, someone else has suggested that Aha may have been ruler of Egypt at the time of Abram!


And what I like about this scenario is that the same writer, Anne Habermehl, also has the visionary Joseph in place as Imhotep of the Third Egyptian Dynasty. See e.g. my article:


Era of Biblical Joseph Necessitates Re-alignment of Old Egyptian Dynasties. Part One: Joseph and Egypt’s Third Dynasty




I personally think that Abram – 1st Dynasty; Joseph – 3rd Dynasty is the correct alignment.


Anne Habermehl has written thus on the coinciding of Abram and Aha of Egypt in her article,


ANCIENT EGYPT, THE ICE AGE, AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY




….

WHEN DID ABRAHAM VISIT EGYPT?


One potential synchronism between the Bible and secular history is Abraham’s temporary migration into Egypt, forced by a severe famine in Canaan (Gen. 12:10–20). The Bible does not tell us the name of Abraham’s pharaoh, and that omission introduces uncertainty as to when in Egypt’s history Abraham was there. An earliest date of about 1920 BC for Abraham’s Egyptian visit is based on 1921 BC for his entry into Canaan (Jones, 2007, p. 25). Scripture does not tell us how long Abraham was in Canaan before going to Egypt. (The LXX reduces these dates by 40 yrs. In I Kings 6:1, the time from the Exodus to beginning the building of the temple is 440 yrs. instead of 480 yrs. as in the MT.)


Abraham’s visit to Egypt would have occurred about 200 years before Joseph became vizier of Egypt. The placement of Joseph in the 3rd Dynasty of Egypt as the famous vizier Imhotep is argued by Habermehl (2013). Imhotep’s era is generally placed around 2700–2600 BC on the secular timeline (Tyldesley, 2009, p. 32). Because we know the secular timeline to be more extended than the biblical one, it would therefore be plausible that Abraham’s visit might have been about 300 yrs. (secular timeline) before Joseph. If so, this would put Abraham’s visit to Egypt somewhere around 3000 BC on the secular timeline, near the beginning of the 1st Dynasty.


There is some known ancient history that may support this date. The first king of the 1st Dynasty is generally believed to be King Aha, whose reign began c. 3000 BC on the secular timeline (Tyldesley 2009, p. 22; Shaw 2003, p. 481). During this king’s reign, the colonies of Egyptians who had been living in south Palestine abandoned their residences and returned to Egypt for unknown reasons, but then returned to Canaan later on during the 1st Dynasty (Raffaele, 2003; Porat, 1992; Watrin, 1998, pp. 1224–26). This author suggests that the same severe famine in Canaan that drove Abraham to Egypt may have caused these Egyptians to return home at this time.


We also note that Abraham did not appear to have the option of circumventing this powerful pharaoh. For his own personal safety (because of Sarah’s beauty), Abraham might have liked to pasture his animals in a section of Egypt that was not under this pharaoh’s rule. But the fact that he did not do so would indicate that he was obligated to deal with this particular pharaoh. According to historians, King Aha ruled Egypt early after the unification of Egypt (Tyldesley, 2009, p. 22), and would have held sway over essentially all the available land.

This shows that the civilization of Egypt had already developed to the point of having a powerful pharaoh who obviously had a reputation for ruthlessness as indicated by Abraham’s fear of him.


Placing Abraham in Egypt near the beginning of the 1st Dynasty would be earlier in Egypt’s history than many scholars have led us to believe. The well-respected Cook (1871, p. 447) thought Abraham was in Egypt between the 11th and 13th Dynasty. Ashton & Down (2006, p. 37) put Abraham in Egypt in the time of Kufu (4th Dynasty).However, those who place Abraham later on in Egyptian history have a problem, in that they have to fit even more historical events into the period between the Ice Age and Abraham’s visit. ….

[End of quote]


The article then goes horribly wrong, I believe, in locating the prophet Job to only “several generations after Abraham”:


We can conclude that by Abraham’s time the Ice Age was long past because it had ended earlier at the time of the Nile’s wild flow, and all development of Egypt’s civilization had taken place after that. This also means that Job did not live during the Ice Age, as is believed by various writers (e.g., Northrup, 1996). Job lived several generations after Abraham (Job 42:17 LXX). ….

[End of quote]


The prophet Job live into the era of the “Chaldeans” (Job 1:17), conventionally more than a millennium after Abraham. See e.g. my article:


Job's Life and Times




Job was Tobias, son of Tobit, of the C8th BC (conventional dating).