Episode Transcript
Welcome to faith and science. I'm Dr. John Ashton.
One of the challenges to the christian faith is the claim that the archaeological evidence for some of the Old Testament is lacking. And that, for example, the story of the Exodus and the associated stories just don't match up with egyptian history, egyptian time period, this sort of thing. Now, this is rather surprising, because, as I've mentioned before, when we look at other aspects of the biblical account, such as the mention of Hittites, which were not mentioned in the secular archaeological records until they were discovered in the late 18 hundreds or early 19 hundreds, by a german archaeologist.
We have the records of Belshazza being the ruler of Babylon. Again, that was lost until recent times, that the Bible recorded that, recorded that name. And so many of the accounts of, for example, in the Bible, of different assassinations or kings, the way they were killed and so forth, that are mentioned in the Bible, when we look at historical records going back about 700 years, they're all accurate.
And as I said, the account of the Hittites goes back to Abraham's time. But yet when it comes, for example, to the Exodus, the argument is that it doesn't line up. And of course, the exodus is very important.
It is the basis of a number of jewish feast days and holidays at that time. The Ten Commandments were given at that time, and also specific altars were built. There were specific stones were laid in different parts to commemorate events that happened, miracles that happened, so the people didn't forget them.
And it's interesting where we can cheque with reasonably modern, accurate, secular historical results. The Bible is confirmed accurately. But when we get to the much older area, particularly involving egyptian history, there seems to be a disconnect.
And one of those particularly happens is, and I read this in many of the Bible commentaries, that, for example, the egyptian queen Hapshetzet was the daughter of pharaoh that rescued Moses. But really, that just doesn't fit, because we have so much information about that particular time period that Hapshetzet lived in, but it doesn't fit the description in the Bible. But if we look a little bit further, we can actually find some important clues.
So, according to regular secular archaeological history, there are major problems in trying to synchronise egyptian history with the events described in the biblical accounts of the Exodus. And that's why, of course, most scholars have concluded that the Bible record is unreliable. And this, of course, gets into our public education.
But in actual fact, I think if we look very carefully at what evidence we have, we see that egyptian history can actually confirm the Bible. So, for example, in the Old Testament Book of first Kings, it states that in the 480th year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, he began to build the house of the Lord. Now, most scholars would accept the date of about 970 BC for the beginning of Solomon's reign.
Again, look up Google. Just google that. And that's the sort of date that you get.
And so his fourth year would be 966 BC. And counting back 480 years, that would place the exodus at about 1445 BC. Now, one of the reasons the scholars reject this date is that in Egypt, the 18th dynasty was supposed to have reigned from 1550 to 320 BC.
And this was a very, very powerful dynasty. There were a lot of records. As a matter of fact, it's one of the best recorded dynasties of egyptian history.
And it's interesting, during that period of a couple of hundred years, there's no trace of any national disaster such as must have occurred as a result of the ten devastating plagues that fell on the land of Egypt. There's no sign of any military disaster such as befell the egyptian army when it perished in the wars of the Red Sea. And of course, it's been argued that the Egyptians only recorded their victories, not their defeats.
But the thing is, from the 18th dynasty, we've got so many inscriptions and even papyrus documents that it's possible for archaeologists to map the movements of the whole dynasty. And there's also no trace of a large semitic slaves, which the Israelites had become at that stage, or of any national disaster that would have resulted, as I said before, from the ten plagues. And moreover, all the mummies of the pharaohs of that era are actually in the egyptian museum in Cairo.
So, for example, if Tutmos II or Aminatep II, who people would argue would be the pharaohs of the Exodus, their bodies are in the Cairo museum, they're not in the Red Sea. And of course, some people argue, well, the Bible doesn't specifically say that the pharaoh drowned, perhaps, but again, it's likely. But as I said, we can see that the whole picture we have of an amazing disaster and everything is not recorded there.
And so this really should give. And people are the clues either if the Bible is correct, then we've got a major problem with dating egyptian history, or else, as most people want to conclude, that the Bible account is sort of made up. But I think that's highly unlikely, given the number of events and feasts.
And so forth that were instituted to remember this particular event. And people would have remembered it, and easily people would have remembered, well, hang on, that didn't happen. And so I think the fact that these different feasts that are recorded there, that the people had to keep, are definitely powerful evidence that the exodus did occur.
Another interesting thing that should throw some red flags on the traditional secular dating is that the main centre of activity for the 18th dynasty was in Luxor, which is 1000 kilometres away from the land of Goshen, where most of the Exodus action took place. And so it seems highly unlikely with the Exodus account to have Moses commuting back and forth from the delta to Luxor, to implore pharaoh to let my people go, or even to Memphis, the political capital. So also in the land of Canaan at that time, there's a lack of evidence for an invasion by a foreign army.
So the date of the invasion would have been 40 years after the exodus. So that'd be about 1400 bc, or 14 five, to be more precise. And that falls in the middle of the late Bronze period.
And I've talked about these different periods that archaeologists like to slot history into with these names, the lake Bronze and so forth. But as I point out before, they're very artificial ages and they're very rubbery and they actually overlap enormously, in my view, because if we look at the late bronze period, again, the archaeologists find no evidence for the destruction of Jericho and I during this time, or the arrival of people with a different culture. And so again, this is one of the reasons why the scholars are rejecting the exodus account and the account of the destruction of Jericho and AI.
But it's interesting that when we look at evidence, there is. While there might not be evidence for the destruction of Jericho in the late bronze, there's a lot of evidence for the destruction at the end of the early bronze period. And so if we look to change the times, in other words, what if the.
If we consider that the traditional time periods are incorrect, as understood by archaeology, so that the end of the early bronze period actually fell around 14 five bc rather than earlier, then the evidence of archaeology and the evidence for the Bible actually line up amazingly. I think chronology is probably the hottest issue in archaeological debates, particularly in this era. And I think the evidence is growing that the traditional, really long age dates for egyptian history.
And we have another problem there too, because if we adopt these really long ages, we've got the egyptian history going back actually before the date of the flood as well. But if we bring it forward 300, 350 years then a whole lot of things actually lined up. It's interesting, back in 1992, an archaeologist, Peter James, published a book called Centuries of darkness, in other words, in which he claimed that the third intermediate period of Egypt, that's dynasties 21 to 23, were actually contemporary with other dynasties and that the egyptian dates for the period should be reduced by 250 years.
So he argued that there was at least a 250 year period that should be shortened there. It's interesting that the foreword to that book and that book generated a lot of controversy. A lot of people weren't happy with it.
But it's interesting that in the forward, which was by Professor Colin Renfue from Cambridge University, and he wrote in the foreword, this disquieting book draws attention in a penetrating and original way to a crucial period in the world's history and to the very shaky nature of the dating, of the whole chronological framework upon which our current interpretations rest. So there we have it. That's the bottom line.
The secular dating is very shaky. And this is where I think if we adjust, make these adjustments to egyptian history to line up with the biblical account, a whole lot of things work out. It was interesting.
Another scholar, David Roll, and he got his degree in Egyptology and ancient history from the university college in London and was involved in excavations in Syria. He's written a number of papers on the dating problem. And in fact, in 1995, he published a book called a Test of Time, which was subsequently part of a BBC television programme.
And it's interesting in this work, Roll also claimed that there'd been a mistake in calculating the date of those dynasties and that egyptian chronology needs to be reduced by 350 years. And it's interesting that James and roll, they're not trying to defend the Bible, they were simply looking to see, okay, what does the actual data tell us? Now, the thing is that this reduction of dates would bring the 12th dynasty down to the time of Joseph and Moses and the Exodus in 1445. The Exodus in 1445 would have been in the early 13th dynasty rather than the 18th or 19th dynasty, as is generally believed.
So that's quite important. So again, just recapping there, this reduction of 350 years is really significant because it brings the reduction of dates. It would bring the 12th dynasty and the Exodus would have back to around the 1450 bc, and the exodus would have been in the early 13th dynasty rather than the 18th or 19th dynasty.
And when we do this, there's remarkable agreement between the histories of Egypt and Israel. And to me, this is really exciting because it's interesting that the Bible records that Joseph was appointed as a vizier in Egypt. And it's interesting that there was a vizier under Cestoceros I, who was in the 12th industry there, and his name was Mentutope Tep.
And he had a lot of power, as recorded in the Bible. Now, it's interesting, the Bible record states that Pharaoh took his signet ring off his hand and put it on Joseph's hand, and he had him ride in the second chariot, which he had, and they cried before him bow the knee. So it's interesting that this was recorded of Joseph.
And it's interesting some of the descriptions of this vizier mentuate actually fit the same sort of authority as the Bible ascribes. And so it fits that there was a person who had the authority of Joseph during that time of Cesostris I. Now, it's interesting, if we come down to the time of the oppression of Israel, there would have been a time, obviously, there was succession of pharaohs, but then the Bible talks about how there was a pharaoh who came to power who had forgotten about Joseph.
And it's interesting, that seems to fit Cestosterus II. And it's interesting, when we look at the end of the 12th dynasty, there's actually a Josephus, a jewish historian from the first century writes about this time. And he wrote, having in length of time forgotten the benefits received from Joseph, particularly the crown being now come into another family.
They, the Egyptians, became very abusive to the Israelites and contrived many ways of afflicting them. So it's interesting that Cestosterus II had no living sons at the time of his death and was followed by Cestosterus II. And from memory, when you see his statues of him, he looks a very mean sort of character.
And then the last ruler of the 12th dynasty was queen Sabokana Faru, who had no children. I think that this Sabokana Faru fits beautifully, the daughter of Pharaoh who came down to wash herself at the river. And so the Bible talks about how the daughter of Pharaoh was down washing in the river.
She saw this little baby floating in a basket there and took it home to be raised as her son. And it's interesting that she would do this. And, of course, we know there was at that time, the Israelites were.
Their population was increasing, so the pharaoh had ordered that all the baby boys being destroyed. And, of course, that's the history of Moses being rescued. I think we need to realise that she wouldn't have been down at the river there to get clean.
She would have had a sumptuous bathroom in her palace. For that. She would have been taking a ceremonial bath, I think, praying to the fertility river God, happy for a baby.
And when she saw this beautiful little hebrew boy floating in a basket, she probably regarded it as an answer to her prayers. It just makes so much sense. How else could we explain an egyptian princess adopting a slave child and planning to make him the next pharaoh? So it fits quite well.
Later, Sabakana Faru assumed the throne. That was after Aminatep II had died. But when she died, that 12th dynasty ended and we get the 13th dynasty began.
Now, it's very interesting that from secular historical records, we learn that asiatic slaves were used during the 12th dynasty. It's interesting. In the Cambridge ancient history text notes that asiatic inhabitants of the country at this period must have been many more numerous than has been generally supposed.
And even the Encyclopaedia botanica reports that ancient slaves, whether as merchandise or prisoner or as war, were plentiful in wealthy egyptian households during the 12th dynasty. So that fits exactly what. Here we have secular records.
Secular records of historical records. But what they're saying is that the twelveth dynasty, which is normally put much older, fits exactly into this particular time of the biblical history. And so we also know that during the 12th dynasty, an extensive building programme was carried on at the delta, whereas the temples of the 18th dynasty, and this is where secular history wants to put the exodus, they were all being built down at Luxa, a long, long away.
And the other thing was, the ones at Luxa were being built out of stone. The buildings in the delta under the 12th dynasty were made of mud brick, and I've even seen some of the mud bricks that have been brought back that had used straw in them. And so during the time of Amenateep II, Sabakana Faru's father, they were made of mud brick.
And that exactly fits what the Bible account. So, and it's interesting, Josephus wrote that the Egyptians became very abusive to the Israelites and contrived many ways of afflicting them and they set them to build the pyramids. If we assume that the oppression took place during the 18th or 19th dynasty, as regarded by scholars, then that's a glaring blunder by Josephus, who was a lot closer to that time period than they are.
But again, if these dynasties were the 18th and 19th dynasties were down the valley of kings Aluxa, then maybe it's the scholars that have blundered. And so we can see there that when we look, the evidence is there that powerfully fits the biblical exodus account. Building out of mud bricks.
We have a reason why Sabokana Faru would rescue Moses. It all just fits at that time, the time period that fits in the Bible. There's actually further evidence that corroborates the biblical account because there's actually evidence of the slave's sudden departure.
See, up to the time of the pharaoh Kashesham memory, Neferdateep I, who ruled during the middle of the 13th dynasty, there was evidence of continual occupation of Cahoon. And this was the main base town where the Israelites that were building all these buildings were living, because then it suddenly stops. And the archaeologists found that while Cahoon flourished during, throughout the twelveth dynasty and into the 13th dynasty, there's evidence that the inhabitants deserted very quickly because their tools would be abandoned.
Other possessions in shops and houses were found in the remains. And while people argue about, okay, what caused the people to depart suddenly and leave all these things behind, the quantity, range and types of articles for everyday use that were left behind in the houses may suggest that the departure was very sudden and unplanned. And so this is what the secular archaeologists admit happened.
Now, it's interesting that following the demise of the 12th dynasty, there was about 14 kings followed one another in rapid succession, earlier ones ruling the delta before the 12th dynasty ended. And then Kasha Kemre, Nefertatop I, restored sensibility and ruled for about eleven years. And his was the last garab to be found in cahoon before the city was deserted.
And it seems he was the last king to rule before the Hiskos occupied Egypt without battle, according to the ancient greek historian Menentho. Without battle. Why? Where was the egyptian army? Well, it would have been at the bottom of the Red Sea.
And it's interesting that Nefertopep IV's mummy has never been found, and he's probably the pharaoh of the Exodus. His body was probably at the bottom of the Red Sea. So we can see that when we look at the secular archaeological evidence that we have, and we move the time period so that the exodus took place during the 13th dynasty and not during the 19th dynasty, a whole lot of descriptions fit exactly.
And I think also seeing we have these other secular scholars who say, look, egyptian history needs to be shortened by 350 years or thereabouts. It all points, the evidence is there that the biblical account can be relied on. The biblical account is true.
And of course, the biblical account is an account of the creator, God's interactions with man and the introduction of sin, and the introduction of God himself, or the coming of God himself as Jesus Christ as our saviour. It's a wonderful plan. It's a wonderful account.
It makes so much sense and it gives us hope that God has also outlined that he has a hope for us in the future. After we die, God will remake this world again in a perfect place. You've been listening to faith and science.
I'm Dr. John Ashton. If you want to re listen to these programmes again, as remember, you can google 3abnaustralia.org.au and click on the radio button and the listen button.
Have a great day. You've been listening to a production of 3ABN Australia radio.
