Arguments for Akhenaten after the Exodus

Lars Wilson

2008-02-17 06:33:22 UTC

RC14 dating and astronomical texts such as the VAT4956 and SK400 confirm
the
Even though this has no business on sci.lang, I would very much like

to know what carbon-dated object "confirmed" anything with regard to
the Exodus;

The RC14 dating dates Shishak's invasion c. 871 per a new method of RC14
dating
that is quite exciting. Basically, RC14 dating only gives a range of about
100 years per
result. But it was discovered upon multiple testing of a single sample that
the results
varied and produced a "range" of dates. In this case a 95.4% probability
range of
about 95 years (of course); that is, 918-823 BCE. But what was also noted
was
that there was a random preference that piled up right in the middle of the
range. Thus
the highest consistent "weighted average" occurred in the very center of the
range,
which you can observe from this pyramid-like peaking in this chart, the
highest being
beteen 874-867 BCE.

http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/rehov872.html

Theoretically, if the center of the range was considered closest to the true
date, then
it becomes a point of reference for that event. Now that is just dating
something.
It has to fit the context of the event though. Thus archaeologists use
short-lived
grains or cereals, if found burned at the time of the destructive level of a
city to
date that destructive level, ostensibly with this new method, to within a
few years
of the "true date." Those are the circumstances for City IV of Rehov where
a sample of grains burned at the time of the destruction of this level was
found and
tested. The results were 874-867 as highest probability and the mid-point
date of
871 BCE for the 95.4% range of 918-823 BCE.

The pottery assemblage from this level is linked with the so-called
"Solomonic levels"
at Megiddo VA-IVB, that per the Bible would have matched Shishak's invasion.
There
is a lot of debate over this, but only because the conventional 925 BCE
dating doesn't
work. But 925 BCE is not the strict Biblical timeline date. The SBTD for
this event
is the same as the RC14 dating mid-point date: 871 BCE. So the RC14 was
a reference to the Biblical timeline dating for Shishak's invasion. Not
specifically the
Exodus, though, that dating is directly linked to the Exodus. Shishak's
invasion would
occur in year 5 of Rehoboam while Solomon was still reigning and thus is
assigned to
year 39 of Solomon. That causes his 4th year to fall in 906 BCE, which is
480 years
after the Exodus, dated to 1386 BCE. So the "confirmed" date, as close as
scientifically possible, for a well-known historical event in 871 BCE is
very
much compatible with the Biblical timeline. This dating, likewise, proves
the
currently dated Assyrian timeline is 54 years too early when dated to the
eclipse of
763 BCE and should be dated to the eclipse of 709 BCE, which is the more
customarily occurring 3rd-month eclipse anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/760s_BC

"June 15, 763 BC - A solar eclipse at this date (in month Sivan) is used to
fix the chronology of the Ancient Near East. However, it should be noted
that it requires Nisan 1 to fall on March 20, 763 BC, which was 8 to 9 days
before the vernal equinox (March 28/29 at that time) and Babylonians never
started their calendar year before the spring equinox. Main article:
Assyrian eclipse"

I would very much like to know exactly what those two tablets tell us

that has to do with the Exodus;

The two tablets both have double dating applied to the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar. This dating matches
the Biblical dating for his rule specifically that would in turn fix the
dating of the Exodus. The Exodus
occurs 19 jubilees earlier than the return of the Jews from Babylon, which
is also a jubilee year; that is,
931 years from the 1st of Cyrus is the Biblical dating for the Exodus.

The VAT4956 double-dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE and 568 BCE.
Since the
568 BCE references are fixed and based on many planetary observations and
the 511 BCE references
are in the context of the lunar observations, the 511 BCE dating is presumed
to be cryptically placed
into this diary to "hide in plain sight" the original dating. You can
discuss/dismiss this conclusion upon
closer examination, but IF this becomes an option, then it would
automatically redate the 37th of
Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE. We can then extrapolate a new timeline based
upon that.

But then there is also the SK400. Note that when Professor Robert Newton
dismissed Claudius
Ptolemy's amalgast as fraudulent, he listed two documents that redeemed the
current dating of the NB
Period. Those two critical texts were none other than theVAT4956 and the
SK400. So that underscores
the significance of these two documents a bit in the context of dating.
Newton might have been aware of
some "errors" in each of these texts, but what he was not aware of was the
cryptic nature of these references,
that is, that they pointed to the same year for the rule of Nebuchadnezzar.
As noted, two matched
lunar references in the VAT4956 match to 511 BCE. In the SK400, another
type of cryptic reference
occurs, where two eclipses occuring the same year, six months apart, are
given specific times the eclipses
begin. Similar eclipses occur every 18 years, but the intervals between
them vary slightly. In this case,
you had nearly identical double eclipses occurring in both 541 BCE and 18
years later in 523 BCE. But
the specific timing of the eclipses establish a specific interval between
the eclipses. That textual
interval is 2:46. The text otherwise dated to "year 7" of Kambyses in 523
BCE thus contradicts
the 523 BCE eclipses because the eclipse interval is 4:46 rather than 2:46.
So regardless of adjustments,
one of the ecilpses will never match. Interestingly enough, of course, 541
BCE showing similar eclipses
has an interval of exactly 2:46!!! This is too hard to be ignored, of
course, as haphazard or
nonintentional, but the only presumption for the reference is that it is a
cryptic reference to the
original chronology of Kambyses or some other Babylonian or Persian king.
541 BCE does not work
for "year 7" of Cambyses in any alternate chronology, but 541 BCE IS year 7
of Nebuchadnezzar in
the strict Biblical timeline dating, but also as confirmed by the VAT4956.
That is, year 37 of
Nebuchadnezzar falling in 511 BCE means year 7 falls in 541 BCE.

So the two togehter rather confirm what is going on here. Faced with
destroying original
astronomical texts during the Seleucid Period after political revisions to
the timeline by the
Greeks, paid off by the Persians to do so, concerned astronomers, likely
Jewish (since
both redate back to Nebuchadnezzar, a king well-documented in the Bible),
found a way
to have their cake and eat it too. They created DIARIES with several
references to a single
year. The diary would be copied many times. We have five extant
copies/fragments of
the SK400 presently. Within the diary though would be secret clues to the
original
chronology, which would appear as slight "errors" until you compared those
errors to
an alternative timeline, the correct alternative timeline. Then they would
both confirm
the same chronology as the strict Biblical dating.

The chronological connection with the Exodus can be calculated in two ways:

a) Via the jubilee method where the return of the Jews from Babylon is 20th
jubilee
from the Exodus. That is, 19 jubilees later. The 1st of Cyrus per
Josephus and the
Bible occurs 70 years after the last deportation in year 23 of
Nebuchadnezzar. Using
the VAT4956 and SK400 to date year 37 to 511 and year 7 to 541 BCE, year
23 falls in 525 BCE. 70 years later fall in 455 BCE. 931 years from 455
BCE is 1386 BCE.

b) You can use the usual timeline established based upon the Assyrian eponym
eclipse.
Right now that eclipse is dated to 763 BCE. The NB discrepancy by the first
of Nebuchadnezzar
is 56 years. When we relocate an eclipse occurring in month 3 in Assyria
close to 56 years
later than 763 BCE, the 709 BCE eclipse gives us a match. Using 709 BCE to
redate everything
in the timeline back to the Exodus, we get the same dating 1386. That is,
right now
based upon the current Assyrian dating, the 5th of Rehoboam is dated to 925
BCE. That
is corrected to 871 BCE. Only it is applied to the 39th of Solomon as well
who was
still ruling. In that case year 4 of Solomon falls in 906BCE and the Exodus
480 years
earlier falls in 1386 BCE.

So now the SK400 and VAT4956, which force the redating of the secular
timeline can
be used to redate the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, which is the Biblical dating
for that event,
then we can compare that with archaeological dating available for the Exodus
and Shishak's
invasion.

absolute Bilbical chronology now.
and I would very much like to know what you mean by "absolute Biblical

chronology" and how you arrived at it.

You probably don't want to hear it, but it basically is chronology from the
Bible
that ignores the NB and Persian Period dates, presumed to be unreliable.
Instead,
the date of Jesus' baptism is used as a historical marker since it occurs
483 years from
when the "word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem" which occurred in the 1st of
Cyrus.
So based upon 29 CE, the 1st of Cyrus is absolute-dated to 455 BCE. This
does
not agree with the current dating for the 1st of Cyrus, which is 537 BCE, an
82-year
discrepancy. But we know where to remove these fake years from the Persian
Period
now, so it's no biggee. It is called absolute Biblical dating because 29 CE
is considered
an unchallenged absolute date.

Additionally, the final restoration of the Jews to their homeland was to
occur to fulfill
the 70th jubilee, a period of 49 years in a week of 70 jubilees, 3430 years
long. The
Exodus is the first of the 69 jubilees in this series. Since 1947 is an
absolute date and
a very modern one, dating the Exodus via this method is likewise considered
"absolute."
It works out briefly like this. There is a series of seven days each with
10 jubilee periods.
A jubilee period is 49 years, so each day of the "jubilee week" is 490 years
long. The
seen days amount to 3430 years. That is, 490 x 7 is the same as 49 x 70.
If 1947
began the 70th jubilee period, then this 3430-year period would end 49 years
after
1947, which is 1996. The week would begin 3430 years earlier in 1435 BCE.
If the Exodus was the 1st jubilee of the week, it would occur 49 years later
in 1386 BCE.

Thus it is of interesting that we have two ancient astronomical texts
reflecting the
same absolute Biblical dating based upon modern invents that must fulfill
Biblical
chronology patterns in order for the Bible to be true, or at least accurate.

You need to update. The Exodus occurred

There isn't the slightest shred of archeological or historical
evidence that The Exodus or any event like it occcurred.

Correction. Not the "slightest shred of archaeological or
historical evidence" that the Exodus occurred that YOU know
about or have reflected on. So you must qualify that. I
have found a few "slight shreds" that tend to be consistent if
not convincing, one of the key events being the conversion of
Akhenaten to monotheism after the ten plagues.

Here's how this "circumstantially works out." Manetho/Syncellus
dates the Exodus precisely at the end of the reign of Amenhotep III.
This reference is generally ignored by those who want to pretend
there is no historical reference for which pharaoh was ruling at the
time of the Exodus, or they want to disagree with that assessment.
But it is a fact, that Syncellus, for whatever documentation he had,
in 800s AD thought, confirmed that the Exodus occurred at the
end of the reign of Amenhotep III. That means at the beginning
of the reign of Akhenaten. Of course, when we look at the context
of Akhenaten having experienced his father dying in the Red Sea
and seeing those Ten Plagues plus all those people leave Egypt,
we would expect to see some type of stragegic evidence or
cultural impact. Well, YHWH was a monotheist and suddenly
Akhenaten becomes a monotheist. In addition, he considered
the other gods of Egypt now "worthless" and opposed them or
did not support their priests, etc.

So given a choice that this occured unrelated to the Ten Plagues
or because of the Ten Plagues, obviously, the Biblicalist will
choose that it was a direct result of the Ten Plagues. Therefore,
you cannot say there is "not the slightest shred of evidence" of
the Exodus now. KEY to that claim is first identifying which
pharaoh ruled immediately after the Exodus. It was
Akhenaten.

at the beginning of the reign of Akhenaten, the ten plagues the proximal
catalyst to his becoming a total monotheist. The altar he built in the
middle of Egypt is mentioned in the Bible at Isa. 19:19.
Isa 19:19: "In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the

midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the
Lord."

Isaiah, prophesying centuries after the time of Akhenaten, places the
erection of this altar in the future.

Ooh, sorry. I'M THE BIBLICAL HISTORICAL EXPERT HERE,
not YOU. If I say this is a reference to the Exodus, then that's
my assessment. You are deciding to interpret this as a prophecy in the
context of a future event, which is understandable, but there is more to
it than that. But regardless, "interpretation belongs to god" so if this
prophesy was writen retrospectively or can be translated in either the
future or past tense based upon interpretation is two options that will
include this application. But your choice of interpretation will not
trump out the interpretation of another, or visa versa.

Now we can compare notes, if you like. But if the Jews wanted to
make a cryptic reference to the Exodus by making it seem like a
prophecy, that is a literary choice. The Biblical often complicates
its chronology to protect the chronology. But in passing a key
reference to linking this to the Exodus, as some choose to do,
is this reference, in the next verse:

19 In that day there will prove to be an altar to Jehovah in the midst of
the land of Egypt, and a pillar to Jehovah beside its boundary. 20 And it
must prove to be for a sign and for a witness to Jehovah of armies in the
land of Egypt; for they will cry out to Jehovah because of the oppressors,
and he will send them a savior, even a grand one, who will actually deliver
them."

Now the context are Jews in Egypt needing a savior and God sending them
one, and he is described as "a grand one." So when were the Jews
in bondange in Egypt and is the person who freed them in any way
a Jewish savior icon? YUP! Moses!

Now put that into the context of when Egypt would be dealt a
blow and get healed, that is, convert to monotheism? That would only
be during the time of Akhenaten when the national religion was
monotheistic.

But this quicktly gets specific when it mentions the altar that would be
built would be built in the middle of Egypt, and a pillar near its
boundary. The only way to have a "boundary" line that is also
in the middle, is if that boundary divides two major areas halfway
between. Egypt was divided between Upper and Lower Egypt.
The city Akhenaten built at Tel el-Amarna is always described as
being half way between Uppre and Lower Egypt, where an
imaginary boundary between the two would be presumed.

So it amounts to how many specifics you want to step over to
think this is a prophetic prophecy of the future, or a cryptic
prophesy spoken retrospectively about the time of Akhenaten
and the Exodus. The details preempts the format.

However, getting back to chronology. Let's say you don't buy
that argument. Fine. But for those who do, it presents a historical
challenge for the king who follows the Exodus to become monotheist.
Since Akhenaten is the historical ruling pharaoh after the Exodus
per Manetho, it would require some "evidence" showing that he
became a monotheist, and we have plenty of evidence of that.

There is also an Amarna letter written to Akhenaten right
after his father's death where the king tells Akhenaten he heard a
report about his father's death. That suggests his father died in
a very public and provacative way, yet in a way that was an
embarrassment or difficult to talk about. Thus the king was
easing the topic by telling Akhenaten he knew what happened.
Of course, this fits Amnehotep III dying in the Red Sea. What's
more, he brings up that he wished that 10,000 of his own people
had died if only the king himself was spared, or 10,000 Egyptians
rather than the king. Now that sounds totally punitive. That is,
that the increased number of people dying INSTEAD of the king
might have spared him. This, of course, fits as well the general
context that the king not only died in a public and famous way
but with several others, so that the sentiment naturally would
be, rather than this god killing the pharaoh himself along with
a thousand others, that punishment (punitive) would seem
satisfied if a greater number of people were killed rather than
the pharaoh himself.

So we do have a letter that is very consistent and certainly not
contradictory of the nature of the death of Amenhotep III,
which the king heard about unofficially by a "report", something
he felt necessary to relate to Akhenaten, as if Akhenaten
wasn't going to bring it up.

Finally, since Akhenaten's records and his entire existency was
the focus of obliteration by later kings, one would not expect to
find the usual reference for a major event like this in the Egyptian
anals. That is, if it were mentioned it would have been by
Akhenaten and those records were destroyed, purposely.

When one is ill-informed and out of date, ones tend to make inaccurate and
irrelevant presumptions.

Indeed you do!

Yes, but so do you, like presuming the "prophecy" about a great savior
of the Jews from Egypt and a time when Egypt would be monotheistic
and build an altar in the middle of Egypt for YHWH can't be retrospective.
Why not? Especially since we can see clearly that's the reference? It's
a literary call, not a historical one.

Further, and I have to look into this more, I don't think that Jewish vowels
have tense. If not, it's a matter of interpretation. The context might seem
future tense, but it might be optional linguistically to translate this in
the
past tense. A man named Rolf Furuli who writes about this I think
has a book out on it. Sooo, I respect the general reading as future tense,
obviously, but the reserve this as a cryptic reference to what happens right
after the Exodus, and, of course, we have evidence that indeed Egypt did
convert to monotheism at one time.

From the strict Biblical timeline point of view though, you have to match
the archaeology with the Biblical context. Per the Bible, afer the ten
plagues,
Egypt was to convert to monotheism. We have the Biblical date of 1386 BCE
as the date of the Exodus. It should be easy to see who was ruling at that
time
and to see if there is any monotheism connected with who was ruling at that
time,
and, of course, it is confirmed. This is completely independent of Manetho/
Syncellus identifying the Exodus at the end of the reign of Amenhotep III.

Further, David Rohl tries to use an eclipse he dates to yer 12 of Akhenaten
to
1012 BCE, though the conventional dating is 1375 BCE. If you apply
that eclipse found in the KTU 1.78 text to 1375 BCE, then it moves the
reign of Akhenaten 8 years earlier than one of the standard "early"
convention
dates for Akhenaten beginning in 1378 BCE. That is, it dates his 1st year
to
1386 BCE.

SUMMARY: At the end of our investigative day, I see LOTS of confirmation
from
archaeology, science and anthropology supporting the Bible's precise
timeline. If you
don't have the precise timeline then, of course, one would tend to think
there is "not
the slightest shred of evidence" of any of this. So I'm walking away
impresed and
you are walking away unimpressed, but that's because you are also
uninformed,
essentially.

Thanks for your comments!

Lars Wilson

Here is some of my upcoming thesis on using 709 BCE eclipse to redate the
Assyrian Period, and why the Persian Period chronology was revised, which
in turn affected the NB Period, which was reduced 26 years to expand
the Persian Period.

(New!) Corrected Timeline Outline:

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html