Adam When?

    We have identified the pharaoh who killed the new-born sons as Thutmose I, the princess who drew Moses from the water as Hatshepsut. the daughter of Thutmose I, the pharaoh who sought to kill Moses as King Hatshepsut, the pharaoh who would not let the children of Israel go and who was drowned in the Red Sea as Thutmose III, and the pharaoh whose first born was killed in the tenth plague as Amenhotep II. How wonderfully the sacred record provides foundation truth for the secular and the secular record provides fill- in information for the sacred.

    Thus far in our attempt to mesh the sacred record with the secular record, we have discovered two very important astronomical dates that positively tie the two records together and provide a solid basis for expanding the secular dating of the pharaohs. The first date was the first year of the great Pharaoh Sesostris III of the 12th Dynasty which was 1888 B.C. as determined by a Sothic rising during his reign. That year precisely meets the Biblical chronological requirement of being two years before Joseph was made prime minister.

    The second date was the first year of the greatest pharaoh of the 1801 Dynasty, Thutmose III, whose last year, 1447 B.C., is established by a Sothic rising as well as two lunar dates during his reign. This coincides exactly with the Biblical date of the Exodus.

    Because the sacred record is absolutely trustworthy, we should expect more synchronization with the secular evidence, especially when the secular chronological evidence is tied down by astronomical observation.

    We shall now examine a third tie point. In doing so, we shall provide an explanation of one of the most puzzling yet significant tablets discovered in the ruins of antiquity.

A Stela Speaks

    Among the tablets that have been unearthed in archaeological diggings, there is only one that soaks explicitly of Israel. Archaeologists discovered that it was written during the fifth year of Pharaoh Merneptah, who ruled near the end of the 13th century B.C. Because this stela mentions Israel, archaeologists have been ready to conclude that Israel was an independent nation at that time. Why Israel is mentioned in the stela is not easily determined. Had Egypt conquered Israel during Merneptah’s reign? The stela records that “Palestine has become a widow for Egypt” and that “Israel is desolated, his seed is not.” Let us study this stela to see the chronological tie point between Israel and Egypt.

    The stela reads as follows:

The kings are overthrown, saying: “Salam!” Not one holds up his head among the Nine Bows. Wasted is Tehenu, Kheta is pacified, Plundered is Pekanan, with every evil, Carried off is Askalon Seized upon is Gezer Yenoam is made as a thing not existing. Israel is desolated, his seed is not. Palestine has become a widow for Egypt. All land are united, they are pacified; Everyone that is turbulent is bound by King Merneptah given life like Re, Every day.1

    The great archaeologist Breasted concludes that the phrase “Palestine has become a widow for Egypt” must mean “Palestine has no protector against Egypt.” This makes abundant sense as we shall presently see. But can we be helped in our chronological synchronization with anything else on this stela?

    The phrase “Israel is desolated, his seed is not” is the all-important phrase. At what time in Israel’s history was the nation without seed? There was indeed such a time. It is recorded in the Book

of Judges. The Bible records the exploits of one of the greatest of the judges, Gideon. Under his leadership 120,000 of the enemy had fallen (Judges 8:1). The men of Israel were so happy with his ability that they wanted him and his descendants to rule over them (Judges 8:22). Gideon did in fact rule as judge for 40 years during which time the land had rest (Judges 8:28). No doubt in the eyes of the world this great leader was tantamount to a king. In fact, his son Abimelech did reign as a king for three years (Judges 9:16, 22).


Israel Is Without Seed

    Upon Gideon’s death, a terrible tragedy occurred. Abimelech, a son of Gideon by a concubine, murdered the seventy sons of Gideon upon one stone (Judges 9:5), in order to have no competitors for the kingship. Only one son escaped. Surely, this is the event to which Merneptah makes reference when he states, “Israel is desolated, his seed is not.” This heinous and terrible crime, committed against the family that had brought peace and tranquility to the nation of Israel for so long, must have been a national tragedy of the gravest consequence. Insurrection, anarchy, civil war, were all possible on the heels of this great murder. Israel was without seed. There was no longer a ruling family except the murderer himself and one son who was himself. No wonder Merneptah concludes Palestine is without a protector and ripe for conquest.

    When did this event, recorded on the Israel stela in the fifth year of Merneptah, occur? In the Biblical chronology we determined (Chapter 5) that Gideon died in the year 1207 B.C. This must have been the fifth year of Merneptah. His first year must have been either 1212 B.C. or 1211 B.C., depending upon what time of the year he became king.

    The information we have thus far developed seems to be of no particular help in synchronizing the secular account with the sacred account. Actually, it appears as though we are on the wrong track for most archaeologists choose a date of 1225 B.C. or earlier for Merneptah’s first year.

    When we look to his father’s reign, however, we see the precise concordance that does exist. Merneptah’s father was the famous Rameses II, the pharaoh so many have incorrectly felt was perhaps the pharaoh of the Exodus. We know two very important facts of his life that relate to the question we are presently considering. The first is

that he reigned for a total of 67 years. This means that if our assumption is correct, Merneptah began to reign in 1212 or 1211 B.C., then Rameses II must have become king in 1279 or 1278 B.C. The other fact that we know from his life is that in his 52nd year a new moon occurred on II prt 27.² Within the possible limits of his reign, there are only a few years when the new moon could have occurred on this date. Parker shows that these are: 1253, 1250, 1239, 1228, and 1225. Accordingly, since these are the only years that could have been his 52nd year, the only years that could have been his first year are 1304, 1301, 1290, 1279, and 1276. Most archaeologists have looked at 1304 and 1290 as the most logical choices for his first year.

    The dates of 1304 and 1290, while possibilities because of the astronomical “fix,” are not necessarily in either case the correct choice of the five possible dates named above. Archaeologists have opted for 1304 and 1290 because of very sketchy and incomplete information from the Assyrian and Babylonian chronologies. While these are quite helpful back to about 1100 B.C., they are of more doubtful value earlier. The Assyrians from the earliest period named their years after an annually-appointed official called a limmu. Accurate lists of these officials were compiled. They were especially accurate from June 15, 763 B.C., a date fixed by a record of an eclipse of the sun, back to the 11th century B.C. Earlier than the eleventh century, no limmu lists have been preserved but dates back to the 17th century have been preserved with an accuracy within a few decades or less. This is a result of king lists which have boon found which are demonstrably based on earlier limmu lists. The Babylonian chronology has been figured back to about 1350 B.C. with a maximum margin of error of being about 50 years either way. Thus, the Assyrian chronology for the period of Merneptah’s reign does not help with precise dating. When we turn to the Biblical record, however, we discover a wonderful synchronization.

    Let us again recall that the secular evidence based upon astronomical information gives five possibilities as the first year of Rameses II, who ruled 67 years and who was followed by Merneptah, who wrote the Israel Stela in the fifth year of his reign. These five years are 1304, 1301, 1290, 1279, and 1276. Let us begin with one of the five possible years, the year 1279 as the first year of Rameses II. He then would have died 67 years later in 1212 B.C. at which time his successor Merneptah would have ascended the throne. Merneptah’s fifth year, when the Israel Stela was written that describes a terrible tragedy in Israel, would then have been 1208 B.C. or more likely 1207 B.C. And

1207 B.C.³ coincides exactly with the terrible tragedy which enveloped the nation of Israel upon the death of Gideon.

    Thus, we must conclude that Rameses II began to reign 1279 B.C. This is in agreement with the astronomical data and is permitted by the background information available from the Assyrian and Babylonian records. By means of Biblical chronological record it alone is proven to be the correct date.

    After a reign of 67 years, Rameses II died and was followed by Merneptah who began to reign in 1212 B.C. In Merneptah’s fifth year, the year 1207 B.C., Gideon, the ruler over Israel. died, and seventy of his sons were murdered. Merneptah took note of this sad and tragic event by recording it on what has become known as the Israel Stela.

    We see not only the precise agreement between the language recorded on the Israel stela and the reason for this, but we also see the perfect synchronization that occurs between the sacred and secular records once we have accepted the Bible as being scientifically and historically trustworthy. It is wonderful that God has given us at least three dates in history reaching back almost 4000 years, that assure us of the validity of our solution to the Biblical chronology. Surely there must be many more points of synchronization that can be ferreted out by diligent research.

    Let us approach the question of the timetable of man and the earth from an altogether different frame of reference. In the next chapter, we will leave Egypt and turn to an examination of the oceans.



NOTES:

    ¹James H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Crypt, Vol. III, University of Chicago Press, 1960, p. 263.

    ²Richard A. Parker, “The Lunar Dates of Tutmose III and Rameses II,” in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 16, 1957, p. 41.

    ³Please see Appendix VII for more discussion on this date.