Chronology - a key to Biblical History

One does not have to be a student of the doctrine of Creation for very long before one is aware of the importance of biblical chronology. But the problems are apparently extensive - not just in terms of geological time but historical.

For some reason, an attack on the historicity of the Bible is good media news. An American author, Thomas Thompson of Milwaukee, has published a book, The Early History of the Israelite People, in which he challenges the historical view of such characters as Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon, and the historicity of the events such as the Exodus from Egypt and the Conquest of Canaan. Asked to comment on his findings, evangelical leader Clive Calver claimed that, if his findings were demonstrated to be true, then it would have massive implications for our faith.

So, what is the position? Could not Clive Calver have been more on the attack than the defensive? Or, have we already lost the battle?

Anyone who studies the interaction between archaeology and the Bible will be aware that Thompson is not saying anything new - it has been said by many archaeologists for a long time. Essentially these people are claiming that there is no extra-biblical evidence for the great historical events of the Bible nor for the characters such as Solomon. Are they right?

If we turn to evangelical archaeologists for guidance, we are frankly not much better encouraged. There is division in opinion over the date of the Exodus (a key historical point). The dominant view in the USA is that it took place in about. 1450 BC, based on the link between the date of Solomon's fourth year and the Exodus The Bible(I Kings chapter 6 verse 1). British scholars tend to favour a date two hundred years later, based on the statement that the Israelites built Pi-Rameses The Bible(Exodus chapter 1 verse 11). Obviously there are other lines of evidence in each case, but these are probably the pivotal points.

Both cannot be right and yet both sides would seek to produce evidence in support of their case. The problem becomes compounded when you do as Thompson has done and you look at the details of traditional Egyptian history on the one hand and the archaeological remains in Israel on the other. Where is there an indication of the massive defeat of Egypt at either date? Where are the indications of the Conquest of Canaan by some two million people? Where is the glory of Solomon's empire?

One classical problem of the Conquest is the lack of evidence of a city in Ai at the time of Joshua. It is usually `explained away'by claiming that the remains of that city were totally obliterated, leaving no trace. But is that a sound argument?

The Bible tells us that the Pharaoh sent his crack troops as well as the main army after the Israelites and that he and the army were drowned in the Red Sea. Imagine what that would have done to the nation politically. And that followed the devastating plagues - so bad that the Egyptians had pleaded with the Israelites to leave and plied them with the jewels and gold. That, for example, does not accord with anything in the time of Rameses II.

We would suggest that it is high time for evangelicals to get to grips with the real issues. What are they?

Firstly, we must recognise the priority of Scripture. Our position on this is determined, of course, by our belief in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures and the utter reliability of God and His Word. But, there are other good reasons for giving a priority to the Bible as a historical source.

It is easy to consider that there are few archaeological remains in Israel with written inscriptions. That is true in one sense, but is patently untrue in another. What is the Bible if it is not the history of the Israelite nation? It is, in fact, the only complete history of a nation, mostly written contemporary with the events. Where else in the ancient world do we have such a document? No where!

In Egypt we have some monuments and tombs with personal and glorified histories (again notice the difference in the nature of the biblical record). But these are very fragmentary. Manetho's history of Egypt (written in 300 BC, after the Old Testament had been completed) is a valuable piece of reconstruction of 31 dynasties. But, not only is this not a contemporary record, but it is not complete in its understanding of the history. For example, which dynasties were in parallel? Which co-regencies were there? How reliable is his data?

A lot of the evidence still has not been uncovered even in Egypt. The same applies elsewhere. We must remember that even that data which has been exposed is subject to interpretation. Much evidence is silent: pottery, buildings, etc. Other is written in scripts (eg. hieroglyphics and cuneiform) and languages no longer used. Archaeologists are always refining their techniques and methodology, but there is frequently a lot of debate among them on major issues. It is not, therefore, authoritative.

The validity of the Bible as historical evidence has been recognised even by non-Christians who have been concerned about discrepancies between the different sources of information. A growing number of such people are recognising the need to accept the Bible as a genuine historical document at least on a par with other ancient documents and probably more reliable than most. We would want to go further, but their position is a reasonable starting point for the non-believer.

We need to recognise that, when reading other national histories, we are reading personal histories and that these are written to extol the monarch. They will not, therefore, contain details of their defeats. Also, when reading documents in other languages, we must remember that names will often be rendered differently. We see this today, for example, in the naming of the nations: Germany, Deutschland, l'Allemagne, etc., all refer to the same place. The Bible tells us how people are known by different names in different lands: the Hebrews in Babylon were given new names; Joseph in Egypt was given another name (and so, presumably, would Jacob and the brethren have been so-named). But, can we find a point in Egyptian history that corresponds to an event such as the Exodus? A total collapse of a culture and a nation? Some believe that we can find this at the Second Intermediate Period in Egyptian history. At this point we have such a collapse, a pharaoh who died by drowning and the overthrow of the nation by foreigners.

John Bimson has shown that the circumstances of the Conquest of Canaan correspond to the close of Middle Bronze Age II. Bryant Wood has reviewed the evidence at Jericho and showed that it does conform to the biblical record of that time. David Livingston has studied the problem at Ai and has come to the conclusion, on the basis of Biblical evidence, that archaeologists have been studying the wrong site. He has relocated it and his work (Easter 1993) encouraged him to believe that his new site conforms to the Scriptural record.

What about Solomon and all his glory? A reworking of the chronology based on the repositioning of the Second Intermediate Period gives a new time frame which does conform to the Biblical scene.

The evidence in support of these studies is mounting substantially. It is being developed by qualified archaeologists though unfortunately not taken seriously by evangelicals. The Biblical Creation Society has a reading list: The Early History of Israel and Its Neighbours which can be purchased from us. Two useful sources of information are (a) a book, Centuries of Darkness, by Peter James (published by Jonathan Cape) and (b) a journal, Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (from 127 Porter Road, Basingstoke, Hants RG22 43T).

J.H. John Peet (1993) 

Added 16th March 2004

The evidence in support of these studies is mounting substantially. It is being developed by qualified archaeologists though unfortunately not taken seriously by many evangelicals. The Biblical Creation Society has a reading list: The Early History of Israel and Its Neighbours which can be purchased from us. Other useful sources of information are (a) Centuries of Darkness, by Peter James (published by Jonathan Cape) and (b) A Test of Time: Pharaohs and Kings, by David Rohl (published by Century). Another useful booklet which summarises the key issues is (When) Did It Happen? New Contexts for Old Testament History, by John J Bimson (Grove Books Ltd.). Each of these authors would say there is much more work to be done and some of their conclusions will need refining with time, but they give us a basis for moving forward in this subject.