Egypt and the Old Testament Part One

The Problem

"The Encyclopedia of Christianity has an article on 'Biblical Archaeology' which states that the positive evidences of the Exodus and the settlement of the Israelites in Palestine are totally lacking. Summarizing the Egyptian evidence [for the Exodus and Conquest]…'.we cannot be certain'; and 'when we look at the evidence from Palestine, it is again inconclusive.' Professor MacRae concludes this section of his article with these words: 'Some new discovery may make the matter absolutely final, but up to the present, it must be considered a question on which we do not have sufficient light.' However, this absence of any solid, positive evidence is incompatible with the biblical record. The Exodus was a catastrophe for Egypt: economically, politically, and militarily, The Scriptures declare it to be a judgment upon that nation." David J. Taylor, "Radio Calibration - Revised, 'Creation Research Society Quarterly', June, 1978, p. 21 [Quotation from A.A. MacRae, "Biblical Archaeology", in Encyclopedia of Christianity, vol. 2(167),J.

It is important to mention that the only universally acknowledged discrepancy between Israelite and Egyptian history is the timing of the great flood. If we take the Biblical text at face value, and compare it to popular opinion regarding Egypt's history and chronology, this inconsistency is glaring. The Genesis record tells us of a global flood that occurred about 2400 BC, and the dispersion of peoples (who had hitherto lived together on the plains of Shinar) after God had supernaturally changed their languages. The Israelite Exodus from Egypt under Moses, which according to the Biblical record would have taken place about 1447 BC, cannot be said to be without archaeological support. (contrary to the above quote from Creation Research Quarterly). Byant Wood, a well respected archaeologist, has written at length on this (his writings can be reached through the Christian Answers website, www.christiananswers.net).

The Church's Position: Ignorance or Compromise

For the most part, the mainstream Christian Church has ignored the apparent  inconsistencies (i.e. study bibles, commentaries, and charts often show the Biblical chronology right alongside the conventional chronology of Egypt, with no mention of the lack of agreement between the two.

Where a problem is noted, more often than not, its the Biblical text that gets hacked. Case in point ("The Old Testament Speaks", Samuel Schultz, Wheaton College, 1960, p.16):

"Usher's date for the Flood was 2348 B.C. S.R. Driver in his commentary on Genesis (1904) alleged 2501 B.C. as the biblical date for the Flood. In the light of a continuous civilization in Egypt since about 3000 B.C. these dates seem untenable."

Egyptian Chronology: Plastic Evidence

It's unfortunate that so many Christians have been duped into mistrusting their Bibles because of what mainstream secular academia is presenting as historic facts. Contrary to popular opinion, Egypt's history is not the absolute that many have been led to believe.

"It must never be forgotten that we are dealing with a civilisation thousands of years old and one in which only tiny remnants have survived. What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters." Sir Alan Gardiner, 1961, as quoted in David Rohl's "Pharaohs and Kings", 1995, p. 6

"In the course of a single century's research, the earliest date in Egyptian history - that of Egypt's unification under King Menes - has plummeted from 5876 to 2900 B.C. and not even that latter year has been established beyond doubt. Do we, in fact, have any firm dates at all?" Johannes Lehmann, "The Hittites", 1977, p. 204

Establishing Egypt's Chronology / History - The Conventional Chronology

The King Lists of Manetho - The Backbone of Egyptian Chronology

"The beginnings of writing in Egypt go back to about 3100 BC, when the Two Lands became united in a single kingdom. According to tradition, it was Menes, a king of Upper Egypt, who brought about the union. He stands first in the long line of kings who ruled Egypt for about 3,000 years. Egyptian priests made lists of their kings, or pharaohs, and noted the most important events of their reigns. About 280 BC one of these priests, Manetho, grouped the pharaohs into 30 dynasties." Excepted from the Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996, "Dynasties of Egypt

Specific Examples Manetho's Unreliability

Re: Moses

"Manetho, an Egyptian historian of the third century B.C., as reported by Josephus, tells us that the Exodus was due to the desire of the Egyptians to protect themselves from a plague that had broken out among the destitute and enslaved Jews, and that Moses was an Egyptian priest who went as a missionary among the Jewish 'lepers.'" Will Durant, "Our Oriental Heritage, 1935, pp. 301-302

Re: Jerusalem

"Manetho, the Egyptian priest-historian, who lived on the third century B.C., claimed that Jebus was founded by the Hyksos when they were driven out of Egypt. Excavations at Jerusalem, however, prove Manetho in error, as there was evidently a town there as early as 2000 B.C., or at least four hundred years before the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt…The Jebusites were of Amorite-Hittite extraction, taking their name from the 'jebus' (threshing floor) that loomed above their tiny town [to the north, on what later became the temple site]. Ezekiel, upbraiding Jerusalem, tells her: 'Thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.' Ezekiel 16:3" James C. Muir, "His Truth Endwith, "1937, p. 127

Re: Dynastic Totals:

"[The chronology of Manetho was'] a late, careless, and uncritical compilation, the dynastic totals of which can be proven wrong from the contemporary monuments in the vast majority of cases, where such monuments have survived. Its dynastic totals are so absurdly high throughout, that they are not worthy of a moment's credence, being often nearly or quite double the maximum drawn from contemporary monuments, and they will not stand the slightest careful criticism. There accuracy is now maintained by only a small and constantly decreasing number of modern scholars." James H. Breasted, "History of the Ancient Egyptians", 1927, p. 26

Re: Differing Copies of His Work

Manetho's work has been preserved in quotations from later historians. The problem is, these copies differ from each other in key respects:

"The number of years assigned to each king, and consequently the length of time covered by the dynasties, differ in these two copies, so that, while the work of Manetho forms the backbone of our chronology, it gives us no absolutely reliable chronology." George A. Barton, "Archaeology and the Bible", p. 11

Re: The 24th Dynasty

Syncellus (copying Africanus' version of Manetho's work) wrote: "The 24 Dynasty. Bochoris of Sais for 6 years: In his reign a lamb spoke [here is a short lacuna in the manuscript] 990 years."

Eusebius wrote: "Borchoris of Sais for 44 years: In his reign a lamb spoke. Total 44 years."

So in lieu of historical material, this information is useless. We are left to guess between 6, 44, and 990 years!

The Four "Anchor Points" in Egyptian Chronology

Inscriptional evidence such as partial king lists, genealogies, astronomical and historical events tied directly to a particular king's reign, for example, have served to create four historic "anchor points" upon which Manetho's lists have been securely attached.

Anchor Point #1 - The Sacking of Thebes in 664 BC

In 664 BC Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria (reigned 669-627 BC) invaded the city of Thebes as a punishment for a revolt led by Pharoah Taharka (25th Dynasty, reigned 690-664 BC) against the Assyrian occupation of Egypt.

Evidence for this point:

"This date of 664 BC is supported by a whole network of interlocking data supplied by various independent sources, included Berosus, Manetho, and the Assyrian and Babylonian chronicles, Apis Stelae and Egyptian regnal dates from the monuments. We can state without reservation that this crucial anchor point in Egyptian chronology is our first real 'fixed point' in history." David Rohl, "Pharaohs and Kings", 1995, p. 119

Anchor Point #2 - The Shishak - Shoshenk Equation

According to 1 Kings 14:25-26 and 2 Chronicles 12:2-9, the Egyptian pharaoh Shishak invaded the city of Jerusalem (at that time under Rehoboam, in his 5th year), making off with all of the temple treasures.

Evidence for this point

1. Inscriptions at Karnak depict a military campaign into Palestine under Shoshenk. The names Shishak and Shoshenk are very similar.

2. Of the names of the places plundered was found y-w-d-h-m-l-k (Iouda-ha-malek) translated "Judah" (Hebrew "Yehud"). This inscription was followed by "the kingdom" (Hebrew "ha-malcuth").

Possible Problems:

1. The similarity in the kings' names may not be conclusive proof that they were the same person. Egypt has led many campaigns into Palestine over the centuries.

2. The Karnak inscriptions appear to have been mistranslated, and should read Yad-ha-melek - which means, "Hand of the King". This is probably referring to a location in Palestine where an unnamed ruler had erected a commemorative stela. (Rohl, p. 122)

3. The location of "Yadhamelek" according to the Karnak inscriptions, is in Northern Israel, well outside the borders of Judah. According to 1 Kings 11:40 "Solomon therefore sought to kill Jeroboam. But Jeroboam arose and fled to Egypt, to Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon."

4. The campaign list of Shoshenk contains 65 place names (a few of which are illegible). This list shows Shoshenk's campaign was focused on Israel and the Negev. Of the names listed, only one (Aijalon) is a fortified town of Judah under Reoboam. Jerusalem is not mentioned at all.

David Rohl ("Pharoah's and Kings", 1995, p. 127) comments:

"If Shoshenk I is to be equated with the biblical Shishak, why did he attack his ally Jeroboam in Israel whilst meticulously avoiding an incursion into the territory of his enemy, Rehoboam king of Judah? The whle situation is topsy turvy: whilst Shishak attacks Judah and enters Jerusalem to plunder the Temple of Yahweh, Shoshenk attacks Israel and does not mention Jerusalem as one of the defeated cities in his campaign record…can we honestly continue to contend that the Palestine campaign of Shoshenk I is identical with that of Shishak as mentioned in Kings and Chronicles?"

So, while the Shoshenk / Shishak equation may indeed be correct, the equation is not "air-tight".

Anchor Point #3 - Sothic Dating and the Ebers Calendar and the Beginning of the New Kingdom (Which Began with the 18th Dynasty)

According to Egyptologists, the calendar in use in ancient times was centered around the activities of the Nile, consisting of three seasons: Ahet (Inundation), Peret (Emergence) and Shemu (Aridity). These season were in turn divided into four 30 day months. These months consisted of three 10 day weeks. The total number of days in a year at this point was only 360, and so an additional 5 days were added to the calendar for a grand total of 360. Note that they did not add a "leap year" every fourth year as we do today, in order to bring the earth to exactly the same place in its annual orbit around the sun. The result: Egypt's calendar slipped behind the earth's natural clock by 1 day every four years.

It is claimed that in as far back as Old Kingdom times, Egyptian priest-astronomers noted that the start of the Inundation season began with the heliacal rising (meaning it appeared over the horizon just before sunrise) of the Dog Star (Sopdet in the Egyptian pantheon identified as Sirius by many). Because of the Egyptians failure to add a leap year, Sothis' heliacal rising would occur one day late, on the second day of the first month. After another four years, the heliacal rising would occur on the third day of the month and so on. Only after a period of 1461 years would Sothis again rise heliacally on the first day of the first month. This 1461 year period is known as the Great Sothic year.

The Compton's Inactive Encyclopedia (1996) summarizes:

"Sothic cycle, Egyptian calendar, a cycle of 1,460 years of 365 days each; supposedly each year started on the day when the star Sirius (Sothis) rose with the sun, but the interval of 365 days was about 1/4 day short of being a full year; hence every four years the New Year started another day too soon, and the seasons moved "backward" (from March to February, January, etc.) through the year; once in 1,460 years, however, New Year's Day comes correctly with the proper rising of Sirius; this 1,460-year interval constitutes a Sothic cycle."

Arguements for Using the Sothic Dating System in Determining an Anchor Point

1.The Work of Censorinus (an ancient Roman grammarian) - In 238 AD Censorinus composed "De Die Natali" in which he stated that in AD 139 the Dog Star rose heliacally on the first day of Thoth (the first month of Aket). Therefore if one Great Sothic period began in AD 139, then the previous one must have began 1461 years earlier, in 1321 BC; the one before that in 2781 BC.

2.The Ebers Calendar - The Ebers Calendar is dated to the 9th year of Amenhotep I and it recorded an heliacal rising of Sothis on the 9th day of the third month of Shemu. Thus the currently accepted date for year 9 of Amenhotep I is 1517 BC. This information allows us to calculate the beginning of the 18th Dynasty as 1550 BC with the ascension of Ahmose I (Amenhotep's father).

3.The Papyrus Berlin 10012 - This papyrus is dated to year 7 of Senuseret III, and makes a clear reference to a heliacal rising of Sothis. Retrocalculations give us an absolute date of 1871 BC for the Sothic rising; meaning that Senuseret's reign began in 1877 BC and the dynasty brought to a close around 1800 BC.

Possible Problems

1.No problem with point one. Censorinus may have referred to an actual heliacal rising in 139 AD. That the Egyptians used such a calendar centered around the movements of the Dog Star (Sothis) have not been proven beyond doubt in my eyes, but I'm willing to grant for the purpose of this study (with reservations) that they did.

2.The Interpretation of the Ebers Calendar is in serious dispute. The calendar consists of 13 horizontal lines, one under the other. Line one contains the year date and coronation name of the King (Amenhotep I). Line 2 states: "The New Year's Festival took place on the ninth day of Month III in the season of Shemu (of year 9) when the star Sopdet went forth." The remaining 11 lines contain month names and numbers, season and day (always 9).

David Rohl (p. 135) summarizes the major problems with this calendar:

• The phrase "going forth of Sothis" appears in every month of the calendar, but a heliacal rising can only occur once in a year.
• The New Year's Day Festival occurs on the anniversary of Amenhotep's coronation day; implying that the date year 9, month III of the third season, Day 9 has nothing to do with an heliacal rising of Sothis.

Egyptologist's' Quotes regarding the Reliability of the Eber's Calendar

"The framework of regnal dates from the monuments together with the genealogical data has become so secure that it is possible from safe fixed points to calculate backwards with tolerable uncertainties. The chronology of the New Kingdom therefore no longer depends on the Sothic-date of the year 9 of Amenhotep I, which is insecure and should not be used any more." Professor Manfred Bietak, Director of the Austrian Institute for Egyptology in Vienna, (cited by Rohl, p. 135)

"The calendar on the verso of the Ebers Medical papyrus…is by now so disputed that we must ask ourselves whether we really possess a sure basis for the chronology for this period of Egyptian history which is, after all, of the greatest importance for fixing the sequence of historical events, also for the neighboring countries." J. Von Beckerath, "Das Kalendarium des Papyrus Ebers und die Chronologie des Neuen Reiches. Gegenwartiger stand der Frage in Abstracts of the Second International Coloquium on Absolute Chronology held at Schloss Haindorf, Langenlois, Austria from 12th to 15th August, 1990, p. 5

"We therefore think it is safer to start with the regnal dates rather than from interpretations real of supposed Sirius or New Moon dates." Wolfgang Helck, From a conference held at Schloss Haindorf, Langenlois, Austria in August, 1990, p. 21(cited by Rohl, p. 415)

"…all these data for the New Kingdom are valid without any computation of astronomical dates and are independent of any interpretation of the Eber's datum. For the latter we still have disagreement about the point of observation and about the question if this notice in the Papyrus Ebers is really to be regarded as a fixed Sothic datum." Erik. Hornug, Conference held at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, in August, 1987, p. 35 (cited by Rohl, p. 415)

3. The Berlin Papyrus reads - "You should know that the going forth of Sopdet will happen on the fourth month of Peret, day 16."

The term "peret sepdet" seen in the Ebers Calendar seemed to have nothing to do with a heliacal rising (evidenced by the fact that the phrase appears in every month of the calendar). Note that where an undisputed heliacal rising is mentioned, as in the Canopus Decree of 239 BC, the phrase is "Kha Sepdet" meaning "the appearance of Sothis." Peret, on the other hand, is used to describe the procession of statues of deities on festival days. David Rohl (p.391) suggests that the Berlin Papyrus should better be understood as, "(Instruction to the priests) You should know that the bringing forth of the statue of Sopdet will happen on the fourth month of Peret, day 16 (-that is the day arranged for her festival)."

Anchor Point #4 - The Lunar Date of Ramesses II

Evidence for this point:

The Lunar Cycle - Different than the civil calendar which consisted of 30-day months, the Lunar Cycle month durations varied between 29 and 30 day months depending on length of time between New Moon observations. The specific sequence of long and short lunar months in a particular year repeats itself once every 25 years.

Papyrus Leiden I 350 (verso page III, line 6) is dated to year 52 of Ramesses II. This papyrus records a series of month lengths according to the lunar cycle. Using astronomical retrocalculations, year 52 of Ramsses II could only occur in 1278, 1253, 1228, or 1203 BC. (The start of the 18th Dynasty began in 1550 BC; monumental evidence suggests that it lasted for c 200 years).

1278 and 1253 BC must be ruled out because Ramesses I only ruled for one year, and his son Seti I reigned for at least 11 years, so Ramsses II could not have come to power before 1288 BC.

1203 BC must be ruled out because it would make the reign of Seti I too long than inscriptional evidence would allow.

This leaves 1228 BC for year 52 of Ramsses II; 1279 BC must therefore be his ascension date.

Possible Problem:

The lunar date of 1279 BC for Ramesses II may only be arrived at if we have already determined that the 19th Dynasty falls in the 13th century BC. The Ebers Calendar was the source for this interpretation; providing us with a date of 1550 for the commencement of the 18th Dynasty. As noted, this confusing document is subject to a wide variety of interpretations and can in no way be used as an undisputed "anchor point".

Egyptian Chronology - The Principle Dating Tool

Although Egyptian history / chronology is far from absolute, it has become the "yardstick" by which archaeological sites are gauged.

"…the chronology of Egypt had become, over the years, the principle dating tool for many other ancient world civilisations…" Professor Robert Steven Bianchi, Forward to "Pharaohs and Kings", by David Rohl, 1995, p. iii

"Since Egyptian chronology is now fixed within a decade or two for the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Ages, our dates are approximately certain whenever we can establish a good correlation with Egyptian cultural history." William F. Albright, "The Archaeology of Palestine", 1984, p. 84

"The campaign had produced some seven hundred significant artifacts. The most important…is the lid to an Egyptian stone jar. It bears the cartouche of Pepi I, the Pharaoh who reigned from 2332 to 2283 BC. This proves that the city is as ancient as we claimed and, further, that it could not have been destroyed until after the beginning of Pepi's reign." National Geographic, "Ebla: Splendor of an Unknown Empire", 1978, p. 759

Examples of Dynasties Which May Have Been Contemporaneous (Once Thought Sequential)

David Rohl's book "Pharaohs and kings: A Biblical Quest", 1995 sets forth numerous compelling arguments for reducing the length of Egypt's history, particularly in what is known as the Third Intermediate Period (conventionally dated from 1069-664 BC). According to Rohl, dynasties during this period were at least partially contemporaneous. Some evidences from his book:

1. Apis Bull Burials at Memphis - The vaults contain 23 Apis Bull burials, the time of each interment documented based on the year-reign of the pharaoh (i.e., the first burial took place in year 30 of Ramesses II, the last burial took place in the 21st year of Psamtek I). The time between the first and last burials (1250 - 644 BC) is 606 years. Note that the average lifespan of an Apis bull is estimated at 18 years. 22 X 18 years =396 years; the discrepancy is 210 years.

2. The Royal Cache Burials - This cache contained numerous mummies including the 2nd prophet Djedptahefefankh, whose burial wrappings indicate his interment in in year 11 of Shoshenk I (founder of 22nd Dynasty, whose year 11 is thought to be 935 BC). Other inscriptions in the cache indicated that other mummies had been removed from the valley of the Kings and placed in the cache as a safeguard against thieves. These were placed in the cache along with the body of the priest Pinudjem in the 10th year of Saimun (dated at 969 BC). So, the royal mummies were placed in the tomb toward the end of the 21st Dynasty, yet Djedptahefefankh was was wrapped and buried in year 11 of Shoshenk I founder of the 22nd Dynasty, 34 years after the tomb was sealed. His placement deep within the cache, past 40 other coffins and funerary objects, confirms that he was buried first. The reasonable conclusion is that the 21st and 22nd Dynasties were not sequential but partly contemporaneous.

3. The Genealogy of the Royal Architects - Begins in year 26 of Darius I (dated 496 BC by virtually all scholars) and moves back to the architect Rahotep in Ramesses II's time. 23 names are on the list, (Ramesses II's reign thought to have begun in 1279 BC). 1279 - 495 BC = 784 years. 784 years divided by 22 generations =35.64 average years per generation. The average lifespan at that time is thought to have only been 30 years.

4. The Tanite Tombs - The ancient necropolis at Tanis contains the burial chambers of Psusennes I (21st Dynasty, 1039 - 991 BC) in tomb III and Osorkon II (22nd Dynasty, 874 850 BC) in tomb I. The layout of the tombs makes it clear that Psusennes I was after Osorkon II, indicating a 141 year overlap between the 21st and 22nd Dynasties. Here is a summary of evidences at the Tanite necropolis:

• Tomb III - Psusennes (21st Dynasty, 1039 - 991 BC)
• Tomb I - Osorkon II (22nd Dynasty, 874 - 850 BC)
• The cramped contents and the change in angle of Amenemopet's tomb entrance (situated within Tomb I) indicates that Tomb III was already on the site
• The remains of the Court of Amun is situated to the north of the necropolis. The existence of this court further indicates that the additions to Tomb III were made on it's south side. The cramped contents suggests the builders ran out of room as Tomb III was butted against the already existing Tomb I.
• The cartouche of Osorkon on goblets and plaques in the Amun Temple indicate that he was the builder.
• Inscriptional evidence indicates that Tomb I was built by Queen Kapes as a gift to her son Osorkon.
• So: Tomb I (Osorkon) must have been in place before Tomb III (Psusennes), the difference between the two is 141 years. The Third Intermediate Period must be shortened by at least this much.

Ages In Chaos: The Historic Reconstructions of Velikovsky, Courville, and Rohl

Immanuel Velikovsky ("Ages in Chaos", 1952), Donavon Courville ("The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications", 1971) and David Rohl ("Pharaohs and Kings", 1995) have each offered their own reconstructions of Egyptian chronology based on the archaeological and historic data. Though their interpretations of the the data differ in many details, all three men have have offered plausible reconstructions of Egyptian history which coincides with the Biblical narrative.

Less-Radical Reconstructions May Also Support The Biblical Narrative

Murray D. Hiebert ("The Historical Conquest: Historical Events of the Amarna Age in Canaan and Their Preservation in the Biblical Narrative", 2004), has demonstrated that even the conventional chronology of Egypt (after about 2000 B.C.) finds correspondence to the biblical narrative, without the radical revisions proposed by Rohl, Courville, or Velikovsky. Specifically, Hiebert argues (as did Gleeson Archer before him, see "An Introduction to Old Testament Survey" 1964) that the Amarna age in Egypt corresponds to the biblical conquest of Canaan described in the book of Joshua. The "Amarna letters" (written correspondence between Pharaohs Amenhoptep III and Amenhotep IV (Akhetaten) to and from the city-rulers in Canaan do in fact mention people, places, and events which may correspond to the Biblical conquest narrative. The "Apiru", for example, mentioned throughout the letters may arguably be equated with the "Hebrews" of Scripture.

While his work reveals apparent strong parallels between the conquest narrative and the Amarna letters, Hiebert himself acknowledges a definite discrepancy between Bible history and conventional Egyptian chronology in older periods (the world-destroying flood described in Genesis which would have bisected the Old Kingdom Era, for example). To this Hiebert readily acknowledges that Egypt's older periods are not well understood, and that fundamental errors may exist as far as the conventional chronology of these periods are concerned. It is very possible, according to Hiebert, to pull Old Kingdom history to this side of the deluge.

5 Points To Remember Regarding Egyptian Chronology:

1. The backbone of Egypt's chronology is based on the king lists of Manetho. These lists exist in 2 copies (Josephus and Africanus) which conflict with each other, other inscriptional evidence, and appear to have stretched Egypt's history.

2. Egypt's chronology is in a constant state of flux. The earliest date (the unification of upper and lower Egypt) has fallen from 5876 to 2900 BC in the last 100 years of research.

3. Thought-provoking arguments have been advanced showing that dynasties once thought sequential were actually contemporaneous.  Some of the most compelling evidence comes from the Third Intermediate Period between the 21st and 22nd dynasties.

4. Proposed chronological errors of 100+ years in the T.I.P., which is a fairly well-documented period in Egypt's history, may indicate that the chronology of Egypt's early history may have errors as well. Note that Egypt's Old Kingdom period is not nearly as well understood (From National Geographic, January, 1995, p.8):

"We have almost no records of history, myths, legends, or any other written glimpse into the human side of that epoch. We know of know literature until around 2400 B.C.; near the end of the Old Kingdom, and that literature is in the form of braggart autobiographies of officers, inscribed on their tombs, and poetic incantations to ensure the dead kings' eternal rebirth with the gods."

Migration After Babel

According to the Bible, a few generations after the flood all the people spoke one language (Genesis 11:1). In direct disobedience to God's command to "Go and multiply and fill the earth." (Genesis 9:1), the people gathered on the plains of Shinar (modern day Iraq) to build a temple tower. They said "'Come let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.' They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. And they said 'come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:3-4). According to Jewish tradition, not only was this temple-tower a direct act of defiance toward God, it was also an attempt to guard the offenders against another deluge.

We all know what happened next. God broke up the building project by miraculously changing the people's languages, causing their dispersion and the subsequent birth of nations. According to the Bible, then, Egypt must have been founded after this event. Given the lack of certainty regarding Egypt's archaic and Old Kingdom eras, there is no compelling reason to conclude that the Bible is in error on this point.

From National Geographic, January, 1995, p. 9:

"…basic questions about the Old Kingdom have remained unanswered…" According to Mark Lehner, an archaeologist from the University of Chicago, "The real mystery is why the Old Kingdom happened."

Pyramids and Temple Towers

It has long been observed that monolithic pyramid structures associated with religious systems have been erected by ancient peoples the world over (Mesopotamia, Egypt, South America, etc.). The origin of this, according to the Bible, is the Tower of Babel building project on the Plains of Shinar. The rise of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, and the association with the first pyramid structures has been noted by archaeologists:

From National Geographic, January, 1995, p. 7:

"The Step Pyramid was a ladder. Not the symbol of a ladder, but an actual one, by which the soul of the dead ruler might climb to the sky, joining the gods in immortality. Like the step pyramid, ancient Egypt seemed to rise out of nothing."

p. 8: "Experts today only dimly grasp the forces that prompted those quarreling provinces to become, with Mesopotamia's, Sumer, the most advanced civilization of it's time - Egypt's Old Kingdom. Many believe that the building of Djoser's pyramid complex, which was accomplished by hundreds of workers from across the land, served to join those provinces into the world's first nation-state."

p. 26: "…in the Old Kingdom, people really believed in the importance of building a pyramid. It's like a small town that builds a huge cathedral in the middle ages. Faith is the spur."

Even skeptics Peter James and Nick Thorpe note ("Ancient Mysteries, , 1999, p. 204):

"Egyptian civilization as a whole did indeed arise with remarkable suddenness, probably under the influence of cultures of the Levant and Mesopotamia…There is actually a clear sequence of trial-and-error development of the pyramids from the early structures, called, mastabas…as time went on the mastabas became increasingly elaborate, with two or three levels, and fine limestone began to be used instead of mud-brick to create more permanent structures."

It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the desire to construct a temple-tower in Egypt was brought over with the migration from Babel.

Other Cultural Clues

The Narmer Pallette, a cosmetic tray from pre-dynastic Egypt, contains pictographs depicting what believe is the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under King Narmer (c3000 BC). On one side, large, 4-legged animals with long necks (which look strikingly similar to dinosaurs) face each other with their necks intertwined. The same motiff is seen on Old Babylonian cylinder seals, and this detail has not escaped the attention of archeaologists and historians ("The Dawn of Civilization", 1961, pp 104-105):

"The central strip contains a circular depression around which are disposed two fabulous sero-pards with their bearded attendants. The intertwining device appears not only on other Egyptian objects but also on old Babylonian cylinder seals."

The evidence is therefore consistent with the migration from Babel described in the Bible.

5. Egyptian history is fragmental and subject to a variety of interpretations. Researchers can and have arranged the historic material from Egypt in a logically consistent way, which fully supports biblical history.

Conclusion and Caution: The fragmental nature of the Egypt's history is makes it open to a wide variety of interpretations. One cannot convincingly argue that the Old Testament is historically inaccurate simply because it conflicts with popular opinions of Egypt's history / chronology. While the radical reconstructionist views advanced by men such as Velikovsky, Courville and Rohl, do offer apparent synchronizations between Egyptian and Israelite histories, such radical revisions are probably not necessary since conventional Egyptian and Biblical Israelite histories actually do support one another quite nicely (at least from about 2000 BC on).  Their work is valuable however, in that it does make clear the fact that much of Egyptian history is not without uncertainties which only become more numerous the further back we reach into Egypt's past.