Co-ordinating Egypt's Old and Middle Kingdoms with the Bible

A revisionist correspondent has asked Damien Mackey:

 

....

 

I was wondering if I might be able to have your thoughts on where you place the dynasties of the Old and Middle Kingdoms.

I have tended to lean towards Donovan Courville's dates on these periods but have been having my doubts about this recently. As you probably know, having seen some of your comments on a couple of your pages, Courville has dynasties 5 and 6 parallel with the Middle Kingdom.

[Another revisionist] has stated archaeologists would have picked up on this contemporary situation if it were true as there would be objects from these dynasties in the same layer but they haven't picked up on this. They clearly differentiate between early bronze and middle bronze.

I know dynasties 5 and 6 were minor dynasties and some objects have been found outside of Egypt. I have asked him if there is any clear evidence of them being in a level below those confidently linked to the Middle Kingdom? There may not simply be enough evidence in the finds to rule out Courville's contemporary theory. His main evidence for it is Ai where only early bronze objects have been found. [Another revisionist] says there is a big question mark over the main site identified as Ai and the true Ai is likely yet to be found.

Velikovsky has only made brief comments about the Old Kingdom's end in "In the Beginning" and he has a more standard view though he dates the end of the Old Kingdom later than convention does. He has it dated to about 1850 BC in sync with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and in line with the early bronze destructions that Schaeffer recorded which are not the same but separate to the middle bronze destructions.

If those destructions are separate then where in Egypt's history do you think these destructions occur? Are you familiar with any accounts by the writers of the Old Kingdom to such destruction? Have you seen any likely place in the early Mesopotamian dynasties that speak of such early bronze destructions?

If we had to propose an alternative to Courville if stratigraphy ruled out his contemporary theory where would you place each dynasty roughly?

I like Courville's idea about the Sothis list just showing the primary rulers and leaving out those parallel at the same time. The order is 1, 4 then 5 for the Old Kingdom 12 and late 13.

Adjusting those dates would be tricky if we accepted a 1850 BC Old Kingdom destruction. Dynasties 1, 4 and 5 would have to fit between 2100 & 1850. Currently he has them finishing about 1600 BC. Dynasties 12 he has starting about 1700 BC. Would one try and move back Dynasty 12 or have some foreign dynasty (dynasties 7-10 which Courville said we one and the same as the later Hyksos dynasties) fill in the void?

I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter when you are able to give me a reply.

....

 

 

Damien's reply:

....

 

I'll put together some thoughts for you over the next few days.

Dr John Osgood has absolutely nailed Abram (Abraham) to the Chalcolithic phase at Engeddi with respect to the invasion of Palestine at that time by the four Mesopotamian kings.

See: http://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham
 

This Mesopotamian coalition attacked the kings of Pentapolis (Sodom, etc.), which will enable one to assess archaeologically the later event of the fire and brimstone. Look out Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras!

Any attempt to date Abraham to the MBI nomadic phase is doomed to failure in my opinion. As I have so often said, the starting point for any biblically co-ordinated archaeology is the identification of the MBI nomads as the Exodus Israelites, arriving in Palestine well after Abraham.

My regards

Damien.

Textbook History Out of Kilter With Era of King Solomon By 500 Years

Dr. John Bimson’s important article, “Hatshepsut and the Queen of Sheba: A Critique of Velikovsky’s Identification and an Alternative View” (C and C Review, Vol. VIII, 1986), exposed as untenable, in the eyes of many revisionists, Velikovsky’s identification of Hatshepsut with the biblical Queen of Sheba. This was due to a series of strong arguments against Velikovsky’s reconstruction – some of these being irrefutable. Amongst the most telling of Bimson’s points were those that pertained to the famous Punt expedition, that Velikovsky had attempted to identify with the biblical visit by the Queen of the South to King Solomon in Jerusalem. Not only was Hatshepsut no longer a queen by the time of the Punt expedition – {she was actually in her Year 9 as pharaoh (king)} – but it appears from the Deir el-Bahri inscriptions that she did not actually accompany the Egyptian expedition to the land of Punt. The biblical queen, on the other hand, had most definitely visited King Solomon at Jerusalem in person.

What Bimson still shared with Velikovsky (at least in 1986), however, was the conviction that Hatshepsut was contemporaneous with the (approximate) era of King Solomon. Revisionists do not necessarily take that view anymore. And therein lies a problem. Because Hatshepsut, as queen, is still the outstanding candidate for the biblical “Queen of Sheba (of the South)”, given the testimony of Josephus that the biblical queen had ruled Egypt and Ethiopia, and given the likeness of her throne name, Maat-ka-re (Makera) to the queen’s legendary name, Makeda.

Bimson scrapped Hatshepsut as a candidate, but failed to provide any other contemporaneous woman ruler to represent this famous queen to whom both the Old and New Testaments attest. The same comment applies to Patrick Clarke in his more recent criticism of Velikovsky on the subject: ‘Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba’ (Journal of Creation, 24/2, August 2010, pp. 62-68).

And the same applies again to those whose new chronologies do not align the early (undivided) monarchy of Israel with the early 18^th dynasty of Egypt: a downward time shift of about 500 years. Now I don’t know if Eric [Aitchison] has himself come up with any candidate for the celebrated biblical queen, but I presume that he, with his “Damien likes moving things by 500 years but my preference remains at 630 years”, cannot possibly accommodate Hatshepsut in this his singular rearrangement of time.

With Hatshepsut gone, then Thutmose III as the biblical “King Shishak of Egypt” must also go. Patrick Clarke, for instance, has rejected this equation in his ‘Was Thutmose III the biblical Shishak? – Claims of the ‘Jerusalem’ bas-relief at Karnak investigated’ (Journal of Creation, 25/1, April 2011, pp. 48-56). Two important pillars of the revision thus toppled. But, again, what is the alternative? So far, Clarke has not provided any candidate of his own. And, as for those who would prefer Ramesses II ‘the Great’ as “Shishak”, well they are running into the formidable problem as pointed out by Dale Murphie: “Critique of David Rohl’s A Test Of Time (SIS C&C Review, Oct 1997:1), with Ramesses II having the powerful king Asa of Judah (in all his strength) sandwiched right between himself and his Hittite ally, Hattusilis.
 

Damien F. Mackey.