Talk:Egyptian chronology

Post comment,
or browse more talk.

Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

Manetho and other sources

To User:Grifken: Manetho is not my preferred source for the length of years for the Egyptian state. James Ussher did not cite Manetho on that point, either. Rather, Ussher cited a Persian source.

I agree with you: Manetho's chronology cannot override Scripture. (I also suggest that Ussher oughtn't to have merely truncated Manetho's chronology further back than the Eighteenth Dynasty.) Let's just make sure what source produced what hypothesis.--Temlakos^Talk 14:34, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Egyptian Conquest of Canaan

I've read that the ancient Egyptians at one time controlled the land of Canaan and the inhabitants had to pay tribute to the pharoahs. How does this fit in with the Biblical chronology? --Anima 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you could provide a citation for that statement, then I could evaluate it properly. The biggest problem with Egyptian chronology is that the Pharaohs were often known to make empty boasts on their victory stela and also to "memorywash" the deeds of their predecessors or anything that happened during their reigns that embarrassed them. In short, to a Pharaoh, history was propaganda.

Worst of all, the original examination of Egyptian ruins begun at the order of Napoleon, who conquered Egypt in 1798, produced a "chronology" that did not mention the Israelites at all. This in turn cast the first doubt on the Bible and on the widely-accepted Ussher-Lightfoot chronology—doubt that Charles Lyell was then able to exploit with his Principles of Geology that established uniformitarianism as the prevailing doctrine of geochronology.

Since then, ironically, at least one Egyptologist has frankly admitted that Egyptian chronology is a "rubber chronology." The world has seen Egyptian chronology stretched every which way. First, Egyptologists denied that the Exodus of Israel ever occurred. Then they tried to set it two centuries or more later in history than it actually occurred; see Biblical chronology dispute for a discussion of "late date chronologies" in this respect.

Bottom line: Don't accept, uncritically, everything you read. If ever a discipline required critical examination (and what is critical anything, after all, but judgment?), this is it.--Temlakos^Talk 10:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The Tel-El Amarna tablets mention the ties between Egypt & Canaan.

For the record, it seems like this period takes place before the Israelites moved in the area. --Anima 16:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's examine that critically, shall we? Most authorities I've seen connect the Tell el-Amarna tablets to Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV, aka Akhenaten or Ikhnaten. Now if you examine my list of candidates for the Pharaoh named Shishak, you'll see that those two kings fit somewhere in the middle of that range. Furthermore, the Israelites did not succeed in displacing all of the Canaanite peoples when they moved in. They took a great deal of the land area, but spent a lot of time laboring under "oppression" by one king or another—never an Egyptian Pharaoh, true enough, but more than once under the Philistines (their close relatives) and even the Moabites and the Ammonites, whom they never did displace. So I see little wrong with concluding that the Egyptians had possession of some cities during the era of the Judges and possibly under the reigns of Kings Saul and David.

Notice that I'm not saying that the Tell el-Amarna tablets are inauthentic. As Ken Ham said, our job is to work with the same evidence that our evolutionist counterparts have, but figure out how to interpret it in light of the Bible.

Thanks for bringing that in. If you can find any other references to them, I'd appreciate that, and maybe you could leave a section in the main article describing those tablets and which Pharaohs they are traditionally associated with.--Temlakos^Talk 17:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This marks my return to this discussion after a great many years and a lot of happenings.

1. I have many reasons to consider the Long Sojourn in Egypt to be the most accurate one. That, and putting that sojourn between the Third and Twelfth (Thirteenth?) Dynasties.
2. I have climbed Tel Beit She'an, and have inspected a marker of some kind at that site. It is definitely Egyptian.
3. We should not apply our modern notion of an inviolate border, or a contiguous battle front or armistice or treaty line, to these ancient times. Such concepts did not apply in an era when cities had walls and defended themselves.

This sort of thing lends more credence to the El Amarna tablets and the story they tell.

Placeholding

Place holding the following graphic here until a suitable location is...

I agree with Tuthmosis III as Shishak

And a lot of other pillars of Velikovsky's chronology. But I can't agree on Hatshepsut being Sheba. http://mithrandironchronology.blogspot.com/2014/04/hatshepsut-as-queen-of-sheba-i-disagree.html There is my blog if anyone is interested.--MithrandirOlorin 08:24, 10 June 2015 (EDT)