Feedback archive → Feedback 2013
Resolving alleged conflicts between the Bible and other accounts of Egyptian history
Is the subject of synchronizing the history timelines of the Bible and ancient Egypt important? Does a revised chronology even matter in the creation–evolution debate?
J.M. wrote in with a very pertinent question after reading a CMI web article on chronology revision: Egyptian history and the biblical record: a perfect match?
Having just read this article, it ends by saying research is being done and building up on the subject but this was 6 years ago. Is there no update on all this aligning/dating?
Creationist Egyptology expert Patrick Clarke responds:
Thank you for raising the question regarding work taking place on the subject of research into the disparity between ancient Egyptian and Bible chronologies. I can sympathize with your frustrations that no updates appear to be forthcoming. This is in part due to the complete absence of any progress on revising the defective Egyptian chronology by most of the six people (seven if Anderson, the article’s author, is included) mentioned in the opening section—Advocates of chronological revision—of the article you have recently read. In fact the article in general is largely a recapitulation of Ashton and Down’s book, Unwrapping the Pharaohs, and offers no new information to add to the then already established ideas of the psychiatrist Immanuel Velikovsky.
The article you refer to was published in 2007. At that time, I had already spent almost two decades investigating the concept of a revision of ancient Egypt’s chronology. The subject matters a great deal, as the contradictions between this and the very straightforward chronology derivable from the Bible are often used to discredit Scripture. However, though sympathetic to the need for revision, I was not convinced by Velikovsky’s arguments and felt that any reconstruction of the chronological synchronism between Bible and ancient Egypt should be conducted in a scholarly manner. There were several other scholars who, like myself, agreed that the Egyptian chronology is a shambles and needs revision downwards (and some of them are, like Velikovsky, not Bible-believers) but who had come to similar conclusions about Velikovsky’s attempts in this regard.
Around this time some well-meaning creationists, enamoured by Velikovsky’s claims, began to publish articles, papers and books. What finally convinced me that a measured response was needed came with the publication of the abovementioned book by Ashton and Down. I discovered many problems with their attempt at synchronizing the Bible’s historical time-line with that of ancient Egypt. I regularly point out in my writings that, in order to produce a credible revised chronology, expertise from an Egyptological perspective, particularly in regard to the language, is an absolute must.1
Anderson’s article, published a few months later, was little more than an endorsement of Ashton and Down’s book and none of these three writers, as far as I am aware, have or even claim to have the requisite expertise in Egyptology. Unfortunately, because of the penetration of a lot of erroneous Velikovskian concepts into some creationist thinking, the process of establishing a biblically and historically credible chronology revision necessarily involves first painstakingly dismantling some of these notions.
In the course of this, it is understandable that some who have pinned hopes onto this have felt as if exposing the errors in the Velikovsky-inspired chronology (VIC) is undermining support for the Bible. I assure you that is not the case, and that it will emerge that following the VIC to its logical conclusion ends up undermining the Bible’s credibility. My starting point is the absolute reliability of God’s Word in all matters, including chronological, and thus that the conventional Egyptian chronology needs serious downwards revision. It should therefore not be a surprise to hear that I am confident that what will in due course emerge is a chronology that confirms the Bible’s credibility without contradicting the historical data revealed by sound Egyptological scholarship.
Since August 2010 I have had a series of papers and letters published in CMI’s Journal of Creation. I don’t know if you are a subscriber to this journal, but this is where you can find much on this issue. I cannot promise any ‘instant’ answers as it will take the publication of several more papers, thus likely a number of years, to fully develop the chronology. At the end of this reply is the current list of Journal of Creation issues containing up-to-date papers on this subject. It would not be appropriate to write a layman’s article on this yet (e.g. in Creation magazine) until the technical papers have proceeded to the appropriate point. Such progressive publication also permits people to see how the points made can withstand post-publication criticism, which also adds to the overall timeframe till completion.
Several of my earlier papers are now available as pdf’s:
Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba.
Is Hatshepsut the biblical ‘Queen of Sheba’? Letter to the Editor by David Down. Reply: Patrick Clarke.
Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba. Letter to the Editor by Anne Habermehl. Reply: Patrick Clarke.
Was Thutmose III the biblical Shishak?—Claims for the ‘Jerusalem’ bas-relief at Karnak investigated.
Was Jerusalem the Kadesh of Thutmose III’s 1st Asiatic campaign?—topographic and petrographic evidence.
Thutmose III was not the Shishak of 1 Kings 14:25–26. Letter to the Editor from Drew Worthen. Reply: Patrick Clarke.
Wisdom literature and the question of priority—Solomon’s Proverbs or Amenemope’s Instruction.
The following more recent papers and letters can be obtained as back issues from CMI as they are not yet available as PDF:
Volume 26, Issue 3, December 2012—Egyptian coins in the time of Joseph, pp. 85–91.
Volume 27, Issue 1, April 2013—The Stele of Merneptah—assessment of the final ‘Israel’ strophe and its implications for chronology, pp. 57–64.
There are also other papers that will hopefully appear in future issues of Journal of Creation that will further build towards a credible revised chronology. If you don’t already subscribe to the journal, may I encourage you to perhaps consider taking out a subscription and keep abreast not only with developments in chronology, but also in other cutting-edge research across the creation science spectrum. In short, ‘stay tuned’.
- I realise, by the way, that both authors are known as staunch and effective defenders of biblical truth. And they may well have expertise in other areas, even related ones, for all I can judge; I am referring here to what confronted me in this book relevant to my own area of expertise. Return to text.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.