Just some preliminary thoughts/comments on this... you mentioned the 7 year famine is common to Hebrew and Sumerian stories. For some reason, its my understanding that such weather patterns were more typical in Sub-saharan Africa and almost unheard of in the Fertile crescent. In Subsaharan, the rain patterns were inconsistent, where it would stop raining for long stretches of time. This promoted a nomadic, impermanent cultural mentality in Africa, which basically ruled out the use of writing and discouraged permanent settlements. In the end its possible we may have to conclude that the Hebrew histories are an amalgamation of the East African (highlands) "Atlantean" founders and "Ethiopian" slave perspectives. A mixing of identities, which took place in Egypt.

It's also interesting that before Egypt became Egypt, it was probably once the underworld that is commonly found in the myths and legends of many of the oldest civilizations. I just found out that the Sumerian underworld was associated with 'desert' and 'river'. Sumeria is closer to the source, in that it was probably the first civilization founded by the Atlanteans (who originated from East Africa). Egypt before farming and irrigation was originally just a dangerous place filled with cannibals that the Atlanteans would have tried to stay away from, that later got morphed into the place the dead go to and lost its ties to the actual region. Perhaps a case of "you go there, you die" being reversed in meaning to "you die, you go there". Such grammatical errors or "drifts" that change the meaning are understandable.

Originally posted by Atlantean35 It's also interesting that before Egypt became Egypt, it was probably once the underworld that is commonly found in the myths and legends of many of the oldest civilizations. I just found out that the Sumerian underworld was associated with 'desert' and 'river'.

To add more flesh in establishing 853 BC as the last year of Ahab, the Assyrian dated inscriptions mention in the Black Obelisk the tribute of Jehu in 841 BC which would've been the 18th year of Shalmaneser.  So we have the following:

Ahab-----------------------------------Shalmaneser III, year 6 - 853 BC

Jehu-----------------------------------Shalmaneser III, year 18 - 841 BC

The information in the Bible has 2 kings between Ahab and Jehu

Ahab

Ahaziah (2 years)

Joram (12 years)

Jehu

So, there is a 14 year difference between the last year of Ahab and the first year of Jehu.  In the same time period there is a 13 year difference (inclusive) between the 6th and 18th years of Shalmaneser.  We can then do the following:

Ahab (to 853 BC)-----------------------Shalmaneser III, year 6 - 853BC

Ahaziah (2) 853-852 BC

Joram (12) 852-841 BC

Jehu (from 841 BC)---------------------Shalmaneser III, year 18 - 841 BC

If this chronology is sound, then we can date the earlier kings of Israel using the 853 BC baseline, since we have their lengths of reign:

Jeroboam I (22 years) 931-910 BC

Nadab (2 years) 910-909 BC

Baasha (24 years) 909-886 BC

Elah (2 years) 886-885 BC

Zimri (7 days) 885 BC

Omri (12 years) 885-874 BC

Now the earliest Israelite king in this series, Jeroboam I rebelled against Rehoboam soon after the latter became king, dividing the kingdom into northern and southern kingdoms.  Hence we can date Rehoboam's reign as also beginning in about 931 BC.  The Bible records that in Rehoboam's 5th year, Shishak, king of Egypt attacked and sacked Jerusalem.   This would've occurred by about 926 BC.  We thus have our first chronologically sound connection between Egypt and Israel of the Bible.   

The next post will be a discussion on the problems matching Biblical and Egyptian history.

I think what might help solve the chronology issues is that there were multiple administrative districts within the Nile Egypt region. More specifically, another major adminstration in Egypt to the north of Thebes or Memphis that the Pharaohs were serving or under the nominal authority of. With possibly multiple Pharaohic lines existing concurrently and continuously.

The Kushites were likely from an older projection out of the Nile Delta central that took place before the existence of the Pharaohic lines (which I don't believe stretches that far back). This specific southward projection had likely moved up the Nile River and stretched from Lake Chad to the Horn of Africa (with Lake Chad being a probable penal colony or a place of exile). Later on, something must have went wrong with main Nile Delta administration, such as a major cataclysm where their capital city was destroyed. This eventually prompted the descendants of the old administration upriver to reassert their dominance over Egypt. What this means is, the Pharoahs were more like vassal lords, or overseers, serving a much older establishment that existed in Egypt. An establishment we mostly know very little about.

When the central establishment collapsed (quite literally?), its possible their mainstream populations and families became enslaved and that among these were the Hebrew. The Nile River turning red, could only reasonably be accomplished upriver. Thus it was probably the Kushites who were behind it, and were in the process of reestablishing the old order in Egypt. So its likely the tale of Moses takes place near the end of the New Kingdom as it transitions into the Kushite Kingdom. Akhenaten attempted to elevate himself because the old establishment had been destroyed around his life time or before. Then the descendants of the old establishment, as the Kushites, were reestablishing their dominance over Egypt and the pharoahs, perhaps engaging in a coordinated pincer movement with the northern colonies in the Black Sea.

edit:

Regarding this older establishment in Egypt I mentioned, it's generally not well known, but I can say that they were likely a nocturnal race and had highly advanced studies in astronomy and its associated calendars and mathematics. They were likely the inventors of fire very long ago along with various other technologies of that time period. They likely originated from the Nile Delta. In Egypt outside the Nile Delta, they were probably using the Pharaohs (non-nocturnal hybrids) as daytime overseers of various districts. They also probably established Troy for strategic reasons, for maintaining links and trade with their colonies in the Black Sea. They were likely the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans in the Black Sea-Pontic Steppe regions. They probably had some stratification in language for the different land segments in the delta, but their "upper tier" language was probably something closest to Latin, which was preserved in the administratively important city of Troy, whereby the other IE languages fell off or had interacted with this language. They were major seafarers. Some time after the establishment of Troy and the prior to the pharaoh Akhenaten, their capital city suffered a catastrophe and was completely destroyed, wiping out the main leadership. It's from this void that the pharaohs became more of rulers of Egypt.

(It was probably the Etruscans who were colonists from Troy, as per Roman traditions of being founded by Troy. It was found that the likely descendants of the Etruscans had an affinity with the people in the western coasts of Anatolia.)

The Kushites were likely from an older projection out of the Nile Delta central that took place before the existence of the Pharaohic lines (which I don't believe stretches that far back). This specific southward projection had likely moved up the Nile River and stretched from Lake Chad to the Horn of Africa (with Lake Chad being a probable penal colony or a place of exile). Later on, something must have went wrong with main Nile Delta administration, such as a major cataclysm where their capital city was destroyed. This eventually prompted the descendants of the old administration upriver to reassert their dominance over Egypt. What this means is, the Pharoahs were more like vassal lords, or overseers, serving a much older establishment that existed in Egypt. An establishment we mostly know very little about. When the central establishment collapsed (quite literally?), its possible their mainstream populations and families became enslaved and that among these were the Hebrew. The Nile River turning red, could only reasonably be accomplished upriver. Thus it was probably the Kushites who were behind it, and were in the process of reestablishing the old order in Egypt. So its likely the tale of Moses takes place near the end of the New Kingdom as it transitions into the Kushite Kingdom. Akhenaten attempted to elevate himself because the old establishment had been destroyed around his life time or before. Then the descendants of the old establishment, as the Kushites, were reestablishing their dominance over Egypt and the pharoahs, perhaps engaging in a coordinated pincer movement with the northern colonies in the Black Sea.

Questions regarding the origin of the Kushites will have to be addressed in another thread.   What is pertainent for this thread is the time and place of the Kushite 25th Dynasty in establishing the chronology of Egypt (and the Bible) in the first half of the 1st millennium BC in relation to the earlier 22nd Dynasty.

Building on the known chronology of the last ruler of 22nd Dynasty, Osorkon IV, we now must address the known regnal data of his predecessors:

Shoshenq I - highest known year 21 (inscriptions). 
                   Length of reign 21 years (Manetho)
                   scholars give him 21 years
Osorkon I  - highest known year 35 (writing).    
                   Length of reign 15 years (Manetho)
                   scholars give him 35 years
Shoshenq II - highest known year 3/5 (inscriptions).
                    One of Manetho's 3 unnamed kings totaling 25 years
                    scholars give him 3 to 5 years
Takeloth II - highest known year 14 (inscriptions).
                   Length of reign 13 years (Manetho)
                   scholars give him 13 or 14 years
Osorkon II - highest known year 30 (inscriptions). 
                   One of Manetho's 3 other unnamed kings totaling 42 years
                  scholars give him between 30 and 35 years
Shoshenq III - highest known year 39
                   not mentioned in Manetho
                   scholars give him 39 years
Shoshenq IV - highest known year 10.  An Apis bull installed in year 28 of Shoshenq III and died
                   in year 2 of successor Pami which lived 26 years yields a reign of 13 years
                   not mentioned in Manetho
                   scholars give him 13 years
Pami       -    highest known year 8
                   not mentioned in Manetho
                    scholars give him 8 years
Shoshenq V - highest known year 37 or 38
                    not mentioned in Manetho
                    scholars give him 37 or 38 years
Osorkon IV - no known inscriptions with regnal years
                    attested from 727 to 716 BC (Assyrian inscriptions)(Egypto-Kushite inscription)(Bible)
                    not mentioned in Manetho
                    scholars give him various lengths of reign

Because inscriptions of Osorkon IV haven't yielded any numbered year of his reign we really don't know how long he reigned.   So, instead we must begin at the beginning of the dynasty to literally "hang" the chronology of the 22nd Dynasty, if we match Shoshenq I with the Shishak of the Bible.    As been mentioned to in this thread and in other threads, there is a minority view that the two are not the same king.   But, as an experiment I will assume that the two are the same and proceed using the known chronological data of the 22nd Dynasty to see if it "fits" with the chronology of the end of the dynasty.

According to the Bible, Shishak invaded and sacked Jerusalem in the 5th year of Rehoboam, king of Judah, c. 926 BC.  An inscription of Shoshenq I describes his invasion of Canaan in his 20th year.   If Shoshenq was Shishak, then he began his reign about 946 BC and because he reigned 21 years, his reign ended the year after his invasion of Canaan, in about 925 BC.   We then have the following:

Shoshenq I (21) c. 946-925 BC
Osorkon I (35) c. 925-890 BC
Shoshenq II (5-higher number) c. 890-885 BC
Takeloth II (14-higher number) c. 885-871 BC
Osorkon II (35-higher number) c. 871-836 BC 
Shoshenq III (39) c. 836-797 BC
Shoshenq IV (13) c. 797-784 BC
Pami (8) c. 784-776 BC
Shoshenq V (38-higher number) c. 776-738 BC

Osorkon IV attested between c. 727 and 716 BC

It is then feasable that Osorkon IV reigned between 738 and 715 BC.   If we were to add the lower figures for some of the above kings then Shoshenq V may have ended his reign by about 747 BC and Osorkon IV might have reigned between 747 and 715 BC.  In either case, the length of reign is within human limits.  It is further feasible that Shoshenq I was the Shishak of the Bible.  The known chronology of the 22nd can fill the gap between Shishak and Osorkon IV.

With the probability that Shoshenq I was the Shishak of the Bible, (and therefore the contemporary of Rehoboam, king of Judah) we can proceed on to look at the chronology of the period prior to Shishak.   This will be the subject of the next posting.

Originally posted by Sharrukin The Kushites were likely from an older projection out of the Nile Delta central that took place before the existence of the Pharaohic lines (which I don't believe stretches that far back). This specific southward projection had likely moved up the Nile River and stretched from Lake Chad to the Horn of Africa (with Lake Chad being a probable penal colony or a place of exile). Later on, something must have went wrong with main Nile Delta administration, such as a major cataclysm where their capital city was destroyed. This eventually prompted the descendants of the old administration upriver to reassert their dominance over Egypt. What this means is, the Pharoahs were more like vassal lords, or overseers, serving a much older establishment that existed in Egypt. An establishment we mostly know very little about. When the central establishment collapsed (quite literally?), its possible their mainstream populations and families became enslaved and that among these were the Hebrew. The Nile River turning red, could only reasonably be accomplished upriver. Thus it was probably the Kushites who were behind it, and were in the process of reestablishing the old order in Egypt. So its likely the tale of Moses takes place near the end of the New Kingdom as it transitions into the Kushite Kingdom. Akhenaten attempted to elevate himself because the old establishment had been destroyed around his life time or before. Then the descendants of the old establishment, as the Kushites, were reestablishing their dominance over Egypt and the pharoahs, perhaps engaging in a coordinated pincer movement with the northern colonies in the Black Sea. Questions regarding the origin of the Kushites will have to be addressed in another thread.   What is pertainent for this thread is the time and place of the Kushite 25th Dynasty in establishing the chronology of Egypt (and the Bible) in the first half of the 1st millennium BC in relation to the earlier 22nd Dynasty. Building on the known chronology of the last ruler of 22nd Dynasty, Osorkon IV, we now must address the known regnal data of his predecessors: Shoshenq I - highest known year 21 (inscriptions).                     Length of reign 21 years (Manetho)                    scholars give him 21 years Osorkon I  - highest known year 35 (writing).                        Length of reign 15 years (Manetho)                    scholars give him 35 years Shoshenq II - highest known year 3/5 (inscriptions).                     One of Manetho's 3 unnamed kings totaling 25 years                     scholars give him 3 to 5 years Takeloth II - highest known year 14 (inscriptions).                    Length of reign 13 years (Manetho)                    scholars give him 13 or 14 years Osorkon II - highest known year 30 (inscriptions).                     One of Manetho's 3 other unnamed kings totaling 42 years                   scholars give him between 30 and 35 years Shoshenq III - highest known year 39                    not mentioned in Manetho                    scholars give him 39 years Shoshenq IV - highest known year 10.  An Apis bull installed in year 28 of Shoshenq III and died                    in year 2 of successor Pami which lived 26 years yields a reign of 13 years                    not mentioned in Manetho                    scholars give him 13 years Pami       -    highest known year 8                    not mentioned in Manetho                     scholars give him 8 years Shoshenq V - highest known year 37 or 38                     not mentioned in Manetho                     scholars give him 37 or 38 years Osorkon IV - no known inscriptions with regnal years                     attested from 727 to 716 BC (Assyrian inscriptions)(Egypto-Kushite inscription)(Bible)                     not mentioned in Manetho                     scholars give him various lengths of reign Because inscriptions of Osorkon IV haven't yielded any numbered year of his reign we really don't know how long he reigned.   So, instead we must begin at the beginning of the dynasty to literally "hang" the chronology of the 22nd Dynasty, if we match Shoshenq I with the Shishak of the Bible.    As been mentioned to in this thread and in other threads, there is a minority view that the two are not the same king.   But, as an experiment I will assume that the two are the same and proceed using the known chronological data of the 22nd Dynasty to see if it "fits" with the chronology of the end of the dynasty. According to the Bible, Shishak invaded and sacked Jerusalem in the 5th year of Rehoboam, king of Judah, c. 926 BC.  An inscription of Shoshenq I describes his invasion of Canaan in his 20th year.   If Shoshenq was Shishak, then he began his reign about 946 BC and because he reigned 21 years, his reign ended the year after his invasion of Canaan, in about 925 BC.   We then have the following: Shoshenq I (21) c. 946-925 BC Osorkon I (35) c. 925-890 BC Shoshenq II (5-higher number) c. 890-885 BC Takeloth II (14-higher number) c. 885-871 BC Osorkon II (35-higher number) c. 871-836 BC  Shoshenq III (39) c. 836-797 BC Shoshenq IV (13) c. 797-784 BC Pami (8) c. 784-776 BC Shoshenq V (38-higher number) c. 776-738 BC Osorkon IV attested between c. 727 and 716 BC It is then feasable that Osorkon IV reigned between 738 and 715 BC.   If we were to add the lower figures for some of the above kings then Shoshenq V may have ended his reign by about 747 BC and Osorkon IV might have reigned between 747 and 715 BC.  In either case, the length of reign is within human limits.  It is further feasible that Shoshenq I was the Shishak of the Bible.  The known chronology of the 22nd can fill the gap between Shishak and Osorkon IV. With the probability that Shoshenq I was the Shishak of the Bible, (and therefore the contemporary of Rehoboam, king of Judah) we can proceed on to look at the chronology of the period prior to Shishak.   This will be the subject of the next posting.

There was probably a pincer attack on Egypt right after the exodus of the Hebrew, followed by the bronze age collapse, which the Hebrew played a role in by utterly destroying Canaan. Afterwards, Egypt was likely split into two competing claims of legitimacy. One from a "Sea People" administration in Tanis, and the other from Napata or wherever the Kushites chose to reside. Thus i would think the Kushites and the Sea People expedition (22nd) both claimed all of Egypt in their records. The 22nd and 25 dynasties were likely contemporaries so you'll need to fix that probably.

The so called "22nd dynasty" would also have to be the Philistines in the Bible. The Hebrew were more loyal to the Kushites, and thus had a problem with the Philistines who controlled the Mediterranean coast. But they were never commanded to kill them or invade their cities but rather engaged in small scale border skirmishes (duels basically). The reason for this is that the Kushites had an alliance with Philistines (or the so called 22nd dynasty). But they still viewed each other as rivals and subtly tried to undermine each other. Thus the Hebrew could not just march in and destroy them like they did to Canaan.

Those dates you're relying on could easily be changed in the ancient records to avoid the appearance of disunity in dynastic succession. This could be to discourage rebellions and reinforce legitimacy. That or there was such a period of turmoil that Egypt's historians lost the reference point for past histories. Those numbers might prove useful, but I would not give them too much weight for reconstructing chronologies. In all likelihoods, the 22nd dynasty were contemporaries of the 25th, but were perhaps pushed back in time at a later point by the ruling dynasty, maybe deliberately or by accident. The Judges and Kings of Israel and Judah were likely contemporaries of the Kushite dynasty of Egypt. Then this Kushite dynasty in Egypt was expelled by the Assyrians who may have actually been Aramaic proxies of the northern "Sea People" group, and a continuation of the bronze age collapse from the way they brutalized the region. But the Israelites were still probably deeply allied to the southern group, as we can see with the Queen of Shiba. I'm not sure why the Assyrians are divided into Assyrians and Neo-Assyrians but I would guess it's to accommodate the mistaken chronology of Egyptian history where by you might have Assyrians in both the 22nd and 25th dynasties. This would also be a mistake. I would think the Assyrians were post-Bronze Age Collapse only, or a continuation of it.

Again, this is interpretation.  I will concern myself only with the 22nd Dynasty and the 23rd Dynasty (which was an offshoot of the 22nd Dynasty).    It is a known fact that the 22nd Dynasty was Libyan in origin.  The inscriptions of the 22nd Dynasty kings were quite explicit on this.  In one dated to the reign of Shoshenq V, it is recorded that he and predecessors were descended from Buyuwawa the Libyan.  Now, yes, the Libyans (more specifically the Meshwesh) were associated with the Sea Peoples, but like the Sea Peoples were defeated and some were settled in Egypt in a program of assimilation.  At this point there was no regime change.   The 19th Dynasty which defeated the Sea Peoples and Libyans continued and was succeeded by the 20th Dynasty until about 945 when it was succeeded by a now assimilated 22nd Dynasty of Meshwesh (Libyan) origin.

As far as "fixing" the 25th Dynasty.  No scholar finds that necessary.   The inscription of the Kushite king Piye makes it quite clear that that he vassalized the last rulers of the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties.   The complete conquest of Egypt occurred in the reign of his son Shebitku.   This is quite evident in the Assyrian inscriptions of Sargon who earlier dealt with the last ruler of the 22nd dynasty and then later in his reign with the Kushite Shebitku of the 25th dynasty.

Due to time constraints to respond to this digression, I will continue later on to address the period prior to the 22nd Dynasty and to the chronology of the early Israelite kingdom.

The entire basis of my reasoning is that the Nile Delta was isolated from the other roving hunter-gatherers of the wider continents, while being a relatively prosperous and very stable region. Which not only gives us the hypothesis that technological elevation of humanity starts here, there are actual texts that support this, with a slight caveat that this is only the most likely place the text was describing.

There are only certain events that would trigger a massive and overwhelming response from such a civilization. And we see such a response that would match it, in the Bronze Age Collapse that is immediately followed by the sudden widespread usage of iron metal, or a sudden spread of new technologies. The trigger for this response would be the collapse of the civilization's center followed by widespread massacre or enslavement of its people.

Thus we should be forming the overall narrative based on this event and moving backwards. Also, the Assyrians were clearly puppets with its military dominated by the far flung colonies of the old Delta civilization, specifically the Aegean Sea's Philistines and the Black Sea's Pontic Steppes. They had new military methods, new metals, all of which came in the midst of massive destruction events in adjacent lands. At the core of the Assyrian military was clearly a Pontic Steppe force. The Assyrian Empire as a whole didn't speak something related to Persian, but their military most likely did, and this group likely also puppeted Neo-Babylon, and also established the Persian Empire later. As such the Assyrian histories could include many fabrications, especially when it relates to the Philistines treachery towards the southern groups, who were kinsmen and nominal allies of the Philistines. This treachery might include using their Assyrian puppets to expel the southern faction from Egypt. This southern group was also from the Delta culture and were the ones with fleets in the Red Sea that had likely kept the Israelites supplied during their exodus in the Sinai Peninsula. They were essentially Phoenicians but before they had crossed over into the Mediterranean Sea.

This gives us another way to trace the timeline of the Exodus. The appearance of the Phoenicians in the Mediteranean would coincide with the presence of post-exodus Israelite tribes, more specifically with King Solomon.

The Assyrians histories are a likely target for ancient revisionists, but not the Phoenicians. Doing a simple count of how many other histories match or mention kings will not suffice, once you realize how many of these ancient empires were actually puppets of an even bigger power. These kings probably even talked about it regularly, admitting that they were actually appointed.

Before I go into the chronology of the Middle Assyrian kings, there needs to be addressed the reasons why there are variant chronologies of the kings prior to Ashur-dan I (1178-1134 BC).  This involves versions of the Assyrian King List (AKL).   One, the oldest version gives the length of Ashur-dan's predecessor, Ninurta-apil-Ekur as 13 years.   The two more recent versions give him only 3 years, thus modern publications have a 10-year variance in the chronology depending on the author for the kings prior to Ashur-dan I.   However, in the last decade,  11 eponyms of Ninurta-apil-Ekur have been identified in inscriptions hence we can identify 11 years within his reign.   

In a series of studies of Middle Assyrian chronology by Yigal Bloch, he was able to identify the Assyrian calendar as lunar and the Babylonian calendar as luni-solar.   He then incorporated the ending years of two Babylonian kings in the dated inscriptions of two Assyrian kings.   In one, a Babylonian king, Kashtiliash IV was captured and exiled in the 18th year of Tukulti-Ninurta I, and in another, there is a note on the passing of another Babylonian king, Marduk-nadin-akhe in the 37th year of Tiglathpileser I.  Since we do have the lengths of reign of those two Babylonian kings as well as the ones in between, we can check the lengths of reign of the Assyrian kings against those of Babylonian kings.   He was able to determine that 151 Assyrian years (lunar) was approximately equivalent to 147 Babylonian (luni-solar) years assuming that the earliest AKL figure of 13 years for Ninurta-apil-Ekur was correct.   We thus have the following:

Tukulti-Ninurta (37) (1241-1206 BC                         Kashtiliash IV (1232-1225 BC)

                                                                            Enlil-nadin-shumi (1.5) (1224-1223 BC)

                                                                            Kadashman-Harbe III (1.5) (1222-1221 BC)

                                                                            Adad-shuma-iddina (6) (1221-1216 BC)

                                                                            Tukulti-Ninurta I in southern Babylonia (1215 BC)

                                                                            Adad-shum-usur (30) (1214-1185 BC)

Ashur-nadin-apli (4) (1205-1202 BC)

Ashur-nirari III (6) (1201-1196 BC)

Enlil-kuduri-user (5) (1195-1191 BC)

Ninurta-apil-Ekur (13) (1190-1179 BC)

Ashur-dan I (46)  (1178-1134 BC)                           Meli-shikhu (15) (1184-1170 BC)

                                                                            Marduk-apla-iddina (13) (1169-1157 BC)

                                                                            Zababa-shuma-iddina (1) (1156 BC)

                                                                            Enlil-nadin-ache (3) (1155-1153 BC)                                                                                                Marduk-kabit-ahheshu (18) (1152-1136 BC)

Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur (1) (1133 BC)                        Itti-Marduk-balatu (8) (1135-1128 BC)

Mutakkil-Nusku (1) (1132 BC)

Ashur-resha-ishi I (18) (1131-1115 BC)                  Ninurta-nadin-shumi (6) (1127-1122 BC)

Tiglathpileser I (39)  (1114-1076 BC)                      Nebuchadnezzar I (22) (1121-1100 BC)

                                                                            Enlil-nadin-aple (4) (1099-1096 BC)

                                                                            Marduk-nadin-akhe (18) 1095-1078 BC)

total 151 years                                                      total 147 years

Ashared-apil-Ekur (2) (1076-1075 BC)
Ashur-bel-kala (18) (1074-1057 BC)
Eriba-Adad II (2) (1056-1055 BC)
Shamshi-Adad IV (4) (1054-1051 BC)
Ashur-nasir-pal I (19) (1050-1032 BC)
Shalmaneser II (12) (1031-1020 BC)
Ashur-nerari IV (6) (1019-1014 BC)
Ashur-rabi II (41) (1013-973 BC)
Ashur-resha-ishi II (5) (972-968 BC)
Tiglathpileser II (33) (967-935 BC)

Ashur-dan II  (23) (934-912 BC)

Establishing the Assyrian chronology from 1225 to 911 BC, we are now at the point where we can synchronize again the chronologies of Egypt, Hittites, Assyria, and Babylonia and the implications with Biblical chronology.  This will be explored in a forthcoming post.

In the last post we left off with the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I (1241-1206 BC) and the Babylonian Kassite king Kashtiliash IV (1232-1225 BC) and how the Babylonian King List (BKL) complimented and bolstered the Assyrian King List (AKL) made clear from the Assyrian dated inscriptions.  At this point, it will be the Babylonian evidence which will be more important in establishing the chronology with the Egyptian evidence.  The sequence of Babylonian kings in relation to the 19th and 18th Dynasties is as follows:

Kadashman-Enlil II      -1363

Burnaburiash II (29) 1362-1334 BC

Karakhardash   |__ (1) 1333

Nazibugash ___|

Kurigalzu II (26) 1332-1307 BC
Nazi-maruttas (26) 1307-1282 BC
Kadasman-Ellil II 1282 BC
Kadasman-Turgu (18) 1281-1264 BC
Kadasman-Ellil III (9) 1263-1255 BC 
Kudur-Ellil (9) 1254-1246 BC
Sagarakti-Surias (13) 1245-1233 BC
Kastilias IV (8) (1232-1225 BC)

The Egyptian raw evidence:

Ramesses II 

      year 5 - Battle of Kadesh against Muwattali II, king of Khatti

      year 21 - Peace Tready with Hattusili III, king of Khatti

      year 34 - Marriage to a daughter of Hattusili III

      year 42 or later - Marriage to another daughter of Hattusili III

      year 52 - New Moon mentioned on day 27, month 6

Hattusili III

       letter to Kadashman-Turgu (1281-1264 BC) regarding military aid against Egypt

       letter to Kadashman-Enlil III (1263-1255 BC) regarding military aid against Egypt

Tudhaliya IV

       letter to Shalmaneser I (1271-1242 BC) 

We hence have the synchronisms:

EGYPT              KHATTI           ASSYRIA                  BABYLONIA

Ramesses II      Muwatalli II

                        Urkhi-Teshup (9 years)

                        Hattusili III     Shalmaneser I          Kadashman-Turgu
                                              (1271-1242 BC)       (1281-1264 BC)

                                                                            Kadashman-Enlil III

                                                                            (1263-1255 BC)

                        Tudhaliya IV

This pins Ramesses II's 67-year reign to the first 3 quarters of the 13th century BC, and therefore excludes any dating of the 19th dynasty to a later date, as well as exclude any contemporaneity with later dynasties such as the 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th dynasties.

Much has been written about the precise dating of Ramesses II.   This usually hinges on the date of a new moon recorded in his 52nd year, 6th month, 27th day.  Because he is pinned to the 13th century BC, the dates of that new moon have been deduced to either December 25, 1253 BC, December 22, 1239 BC, or December 19, 1229 BC.  Going back 52 years takes us to the beginning of his reign to either 1304, 1290, or 1279 BC.  Most current scholars date the beginning of his reign to the last of these dates.   

Now we've noted that Hattusili III was communicating with two successive Babylonian kings - Kadashman-Turgu, in which the Babylonian king broke off diplomatic relations with Egypt, and promised aid to the Hittite king if hostilities occurred between the latter and the king of Egypt, and in a letter of Hattusili III to Kadashman-Enlil III the Hittite king describes restoration of relations between the Babylonian king and the Egyptian king after the accession of the latter in 1264 BC.   

The peace treaty between the Hittites and the Egyptians must therefore have occurred in the years around 1264 BC.   Ramesses 21st year (year of the peace treaty) would then fall on either 1284, 1270, or 1259 BC.   The first of these dates, 1284 is therefore excluded because it falls before the reign of Kadashman-Turgu who began his reign in 1281 BC.    We are then left with 1270 BC (during the reign of Kadashman-Turgu) or 1259 BC (during the reign of Kadashman-Enlil).   Hattusili's letter to the latter makes no mention of current hostilities with the king of Egypt and thus 1270 BC is the most likely date for the 21st year of Ramesses.   Ramesses must have therefore reigned from 1290-1224 BC.  

It was in the reign of his son Merneptah that the name of "Israel" is first mentioned on a stele dating to the Egyptian king's fifth year (1220 BC).  The inscription makes it clear that this entity was not a place-name but rather the name of a people.   It was also mentioned as simply one entity among several Canaanite locales which the Egyptian king campaigned against.   Up to this point we know from the inscriptional evidence that Egypt had control over Canaan for at least 300 years prior to this.   In none of that time has there been named Israel in the land.   

However, there is mention of a group known as the Khabiru which have indeed inhabited in Canaan during this period.   The problem is that Khabiru groups seemed to have been found in the inscriptional record all over the Middle East with names from such diverse ethno-linguistic groups such as Hurrians, Akkadians, Amorites, and even Indo-Europeans.   The context of these groups indicate that they formed a lowly class on the fringes of civilization and not to some ethno-linguistic entity.  Their identification with the Hebrews remains problematic.   In the Amarna tablets they are mentioned as active throughout Canaan either as raiders or employed by local Canaanite rulers against rivals.  Perhaps one or a combination of Khabiru groups eventually formed the core of Merneptah's Israel.  

It must be stressed however that regardless of the activities of the Khabiru in the land, the Egyptians maintained sovereignty over Canaan during this period.  The archaeology indicates that Egyptian control over Canaan didn't cease until about 1200 BC.   In the next post we will explore the tradition of the Exodus and Conquest in context with the inscriptional documentation.

"There is no evidence of the Jews in Egypt under the Ramses or any other ruler of Egypt."

"... there is no evidence to support the idea that people worshipping Yahweh were ever enslaved in Egypt or left it en masse as depicted in the Bible."

"There is no archaeological or extra-biblical historical evidence for any of the Exodus story .... ....
Many scholars have quietly concluded that the epic of Moses never happened, and even Jewish clerics are raising questions."

Other scholars like Alan Millard also admit there is scanty evidence for Moses and the exodus in the 19th dynasty and they say maybe this is "[because the exodus was maybe a minor event in Egyptian history]".

Others have also claimed there is "no trace of Joseph and Moses in Egyptian history [in the dynasties that conventional chronology assert they were supposedly in]".

The Habiru of the 19th dynasty do not match Hebrews as i have shown in other thread/topic here year or so ago.

It is true that there is no trace of the exodus in the 19th dynasty, but it is not true that there is no trace in any other dynasty.
The reason why is because they assign them to the wrong dynasties. Looking in wrong time and places in Egyptian history. Moses was in the 12th dynasty not the 19th dynasty. Joseph was in the 3rd-4th dynasty not the 15th-16th dynasty. When you look in the right time and place you find the matches.
(This is not being religious belief or Semitism. I objectively look to see if historical texts do or don't match history, and i do the same for all texts not just the bible.)

Aside from the Assyrian and Babylonian king lists and 2 Siriadic/Sothaic dates there is no other solid basis for Egyptian dates.

(This is not being religious belief or Semitism. I objectively look to see if historical texts do or don't match history, and i do the same for all texts not just the bible.)

After setting up the parameters of when a pre-monarchic Israel could have existed (namely the period between c. 1220 when it is first mentioned in inscriptions, and c. 1020 about the reign of Saul, the first king) a comparison will now be done with the Biblical chronological data.

The Exodus and Wandering (40 years)

The Conquest (5 years)

Joshua and the Elders (unknown)

Israel subject to Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram Naharaim (8 years)

Othniel, judge (40 years)

Israel subject to Eglon, king of Moab (18 years)

Ehud and peace in the land (80 years)

"After Ehud"                                                  "After Ehud"

Shamgar (unknown, but during 80 years?)      Israel subject to Jabin, king of Hazor (20 years)

                                                                   Deborah and Barak and peace in the land (40 years)

                                                                   Israel oppressed by Midian (7 years)

                                                                   Gideon, judge (40 years)

                                                                   Abimelech, king (3 years)

                                                                   Tola, judge (23 years)

                                                                   Jair, judge (22 years)

                                                                   Philistines and Ammonites oppress Israel (18 years)

chronological note:   Israel occupied region around Heshbon and Aroer and land along the Arnon for 300 years.                                                    Jephthah, judge (6 years)  

                                                                   Ibzan, judge (7 years)

                                                                   Elon, judge (10 years)

                                                                   Abdon, judge (8 years)

"in the days of the Philistines"                        Israel delivered to the Philistines (40 years)

Samson, judge (20 years)       Eli, judge (40)

                                            Samuel, judge (unknown)

                                            Saul, king (42?/12? years)  (?2020 - 1002 BC)

There are at least 3 discontinuities in the narratives which make the chronology quite unclear.  The first sequence lasted 191 + x years, before the first discontinuity.  The second sequence lasted 244 years, a third sequence of 20 years, and a fourth sequence of 40 + x years before the monarchy under Saul.  If these were to be taken in sequence then it would amount to about 497 + x years for the period before the reign of Saul.  Adding the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon to the latter's 4th year when to building of the Temple was begun we have (12+x) + 33 + 4 which = 49 + x years.  This would then give us 546 + x years from the Exodus to the building of the Temple.   Yet the Scripture says that 480 years elapsed between the Exodus and the building of the Temple.   

This has led to attempts by various authors to either truncate the chronology to fit into the 200 years between the time of the Egyptian withdrawal to the time of the monarchy, or to render groups of judges as contemporaries to fit into the period.

Fundamentalists regard the 480 years as literal disregarding the inscriptional documentation for established chronology.   For them the chronology from the inscriptions are suspect.    The problem with that assessment is that these very same criticisms are not done with later chronology from the same sources which they DO agree with. 

Hence, they may agree that Solomon's fourth year was about 967 BC taken ultimately from inferences from the Assyrian and Babylonian kinglists, and add the 480 years from the Exodus to arrive at 1447 BC (or thereabouts).  The conquest of Canaan therefore began about 1407 BC (or thereabouts).  However the Egyptian inscriptional evidence makes it quite clear that Canaan was under Egyptian power at this time.

The next post will cover the chronology of the 15th through the 13th centuries BC using both Egyptian and Mesopotamian chronological documentation to establish that domination.

To establish the place of the 18th Dynasty of Egypt we have not only Egyptian regnal data but also synchronisms with Hittite, Assyrian, and Babylonian rulers as well as astronomical observations.   The first of these astronomical observations is the so-called "Mursili's Eclipse".  

In the tenth year of Mursili II, king of the Hittites, a solar eclipse was observed.   Now, there were several candidates for solar eclipses in the late 14th century but only one was a total eclipse which occurred on 24 June 1312 BC.   This would mean that Mursili II began his reign in about 1321 BC.

In an historical narrative known as "The Deeds of Suppiluliuma", this Hittite king relates that when his father, Shuppilulima was besieging Carchemish, an Egyptian messenger arrived to announce that his
king "Nibhururiya" had died without heir and his widow was requesting to have one of the Hittite
king's sons as husband and king.   The Hittite king with much suspicion suspecting that there
must be an heir sent one of his officials back to Egypt to confirm the situation.   Carchemish
was taken and in the spring of the next year his messenger came back to report that the situation
was true.  However Shuppilulimash was angry that the Egyptians had attacked Qadesh which the
Hittite king had taken from the Mitanni.  He had then sent troops into Amqa in Egyptian Syria in
retaliation which brought back booty and prisoners.  Still hesitating, he requested from the
Hittite archives an old treaty which was made between the two kingdoms sometime before his reign
in which he judged that they had been at peace until the present.  The king's sympathy was won
over and he sent one of his sons......who was assasinated enroute to Egypt.  A subsequent letter
from Suppiluliuma to a new Egyptian ruler recounted this episode and was still inquiring about the death of his son.

In the aftermath of the Hittite raid into Egyptian Syria which brought back booty and prisoners, plague was also brought back into the Hittite Empire.   Shuppiluliuma contracted it and died.    His son and successor Arnuwanda II also died from the plague, which left the throne to his other son, Mursili II.  Since we have Mursili II pinned at 1321 BC as his accession date and his brother Arnuwanda ruled briefly about 1322 and so Suppiluliuma died about 1323 BC after the plague was brought into his realm.   He got the message of the death of the Egyptian pharaoh a year earlier, about 1324 BC.

The Deeds narrative indicate that the Egyptian Lady had no son, which rules out Amenophis IV
(Akhenaton) since we now know that Tutankhamun was his son.  Tutankhamun however didn't have
children and since his throne name was Nebkheperure this is a good match for the "Nibhururiya" of
the Hittite narrative.  In international correspondences Akhenaten his father was referred to as
"Napkhururia" perhaps matching his throne-name of Neferkheperure.

If Tutankhamun was the pharaoh who died about 1324 BC, then with the Egyptian regnal data and synchronisms with Assyrian and Babylonian rulers, further chronological links can be established.  But first we need to discuss the gap between the end of the death of Tutankhamun and the beginning of the 19th Dynasty.   

We left off at establishing Ramesses I rule at 1302 to 1301 BC.   Before him were the following rulers to Tutankhamun:

Tutankhamun - highest known year 3
                       length of reign 9 years (Manetho)
                       scholars give him 9 years
Ay  -                highest known year 4
                       length of reign 12 years 5 months (Manetho)
                       scholars give him 4 or more years 
Horemheb -      highest known year 14 or 27
                       length of reign 4 years 1 month (Manetho)
                       scholars give him 14 or 27 years

Here we have a bit of a disagreement among scholars.   For those scholars who choose 1279 BC as the accession year of Ramesses II, they choose to give Horemheb a reign of 27 years.   For those who choose 1290 BC as the accession year, they choose to give Horemheb a reign of 14 years.   The main disagreement stems from whether the 27 years assigned to Horemheb is sustainable, given that we do have inscriptions dating to his 1st throught 13th years but nothing concrete after the 13th year to cover the years to the 27th year.  Manetho offers no help since he gives Horemheb a reign of 4 years and 1 month.  His predecessor, Ay's highest known year was his 4th year but Manetho assigns him a reign of 12 years 5 months.   This has led scholars to theorize that maybe Manetho might have switched the reign lengths of Ay and Horemheb.   Ay's highest known year 4 is a good fit for Manetho's Horemheb's reign of 4 years 1 month, while Horemheb's highest known year 13 is a good fit for Manetho's Ay's reign of 12 years 5 months.   Be as it may, it still presents problems.   With Tutankhamun's reign ending about 1324 BC and Ramesses I beginning his reign about 1302 BC we have 22 years in between but only 17 years accounted for the combined reigns of Ay and Horemheb.  To bridge the gap 1 more year is given to Horemheb and up to 4 more years is given to Ay by some scholars.   The highest known year for Tutankhamun is his year 3 but virtually all scholars agree that he reigned at least 9 years, hence giving Ay a few more years isn't an improbability.   We thus have the following chronology:

Tutankhamun (9) 1333-1324 BC

Ay (8) 1324-1316 BC

Horemheb (14) 1316-1303 BC

The next post will cover the period from Tutankhamun to the other Amarna pharaohs.

The Amarna pharaohs end with Tutankhamun and include Amenhotep III, Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), Smenkhare, and Neferneferuaten.  The following are their regnal data sets:

Amenhotep III   - highest known year 38
                          scholars give him 38 years
Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) - highest known year 17
                         scholars give him 17 years
Smenkhare -      highest known year 1
                         scholars give him 1 year
Neferneferuaten - highest known year 3
                         scholars give her 2 full years

The following are the synchronisms with other Middle Eastern monarchs according to the Amarna Letters:

Amenhotep III - corresponded with the Babylonian kings Kadashman-Enlil II (c. 1377-1363 BC) and                             Burna-buriash II (1362-1334 BC), hence we know that his floruit was before and                               after 1363 BC

Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) - corresponded with Burna-buriash II, hence we know that his floruit was

                        sometime after 1362 BC.   He also corresponded with Ashur-uballit I, king of Assyria                          (1363-1328 BC) and with Shuppiluliumash I(-1323 BC), king of the Hittites.

Starting with Tutankhamun as a base we get the following chronology of the Egyptian kings in conjunction with the reigns of Babylonian and Assyrian kings

Amenhotep III (38) 1391-1353 BC 

                                          correspondence with Kadashman-Enlil II (c. 1377-1363 BC)

                                          correspondence with Burna-Buriash II (1362-1334 BC)     
Amenhotep IV (17) 1353-1336 BC   

                                          correspondence with Burna-Buriash II (1362-1334 BC)

                                          correspondence with Ashur-uballit I (1363-1328 BC)          
Smenkhare (1) 1336-1335 BC           
Neferneferuaten (2) 1335-1333 BC     
Tutankhamen (9)  1333-1324 BC 

We thus have a viable chronology for the Egyptian kings in the 14th century BC.

Our final pieces of data, before we revisit the biblical chronological data, is to place the earlier kings of the 18th Dynasty (the dynasty of Akhenaten and Tutankhamun) in a chronological framework.   The data sets for the kings of the earliest part of the 18th Dynasty is as follows:

Ahmose      - highest known year 22
                   length of reign 25 years 4 months (Manetho)
                   scholars give him 25 years
Amenhotep I - highest known year 21 (tomb inscription of Amenemhat the magician)
                    length of reign 20 years 7 months (Manetho)
                     scholars give him 21 years
                     astronomical anchor point - year 9 heliacal rising of Sothis
Thutmose I  - highest known year 9
                    length of reign 12 years 9 months (Manetho)
                    scholars give him 13 years
Thutmose II - highest known year 1
                    length of reign 13 years (Manetho)
                    scholars give him either 1, 3-4, or 13 years
Thutmose III - length of reign 54 years (tomb inscription of Amenemheb-Mahu)
                     length of reign 25 years 10 months (Manetho)
                     scholars give him 54 years
Amenhotep II - highest known year 26
                       length of reign 30 years 10 months (Manetho)
                       at least two years of co-regency
                       scholars give him 26 years  
Thutmose IV -  highest known year 8
                       length of reign 9 years 8 months (Manetho)
                       scholars give him 10 years

Here we have a third astronomical observation (after a lunar observation in the reign of Ramesses II and a solar eclipse observed about 14 years after the death of Tutankhamun).   This heliacal rising of Sothis (Sirius) in conjunction with the known regnal data of the earliest kings of the 18th Dynasty would have occurred either in 1537 BC if observed from Memphis or 1517 BC if observed from Thebes. The known chronological data seems to favor a 1517 BC date, also considering that at that time Thebes was the capital of the pharaohs.   We have the following:

Ahmose (25)  1551-1526 BC   
Amenhotep I (21)  1526-1505 BC   
year 9 heliacal rising of Sothis (Thebes) 1517 BC 
Thutmose I (13)  1505-1492 BC   
Thutmose II (13)  1492-1479 BC   
Thutmose III (54)  1479-1425 BC     
Amenhotep II (26)  1427-1401 BC  (2 year co-regency) 
Thutmose IV (10)  1401-1391 BC     
Amenhotep III (38)  1391-1353 BC 

Now we must flesh out this chronological framework with events in the reigns of these kings as they relate to Canaan.

(Hapshepsut, 1479-1457 BC) - sent raiding expeditions to Byblos and the Sinai

Thutmose III (1479-1425 BC) - campaigned against the king of Kadesh - battle of Megiddo.  Northern Canaan under his control.  Tribute from Syrian princes.  Assyrian, Babylonian, and Hittite kings sent him gifts for his accomplishment.   Further extensive campaigning and tribute collecting in Canaan and Syria in the following years (1457-1439 BC).  Syrian towns were garrisoned.  He crossed the Euphrates and invaded Mitanni.  The Mitannians retaliated by invading Egyptian-held Syria and fought an inconclusive battle.   The Mittanians garrisoned some Syrian towns and the pharaoh had to reconquer some Canaanite and Syrian towns.  

As mentioned before, the chronology of the narratives of the Exodus, the Wandering, the Conquest, and the Judges and early kings cannot be fitted into the 480 years, and the 480 years cannot be fitted from the time of the Egyptian withdrawal c. 1200-1150 BC to Solomon's fourth year c. 967 BC when the Temple began to be built.  It has been noted that the figure of "40 years" is repetitive in the biblical narratives as mentioned earlier.  As a series of examples are the following:

From the Exodus to the Conquest - 40 years

Othniel, judge - 40 years

Ehud and peace in the land - 80 years (40 x 2)

Deborah and Barak and peace in the land - 40 years

Gideon, judge - 40 years

The Philistine oppression - 40 years

Eli, judge - 40 years

Saul, king - 40 years

David, king - 40 years (7 + 33)

Solomon, king - 40 years

The 480 years can be seen as "40" x 12.   Several biblical passages describe an entire generation dying off at the end of 40 years, hence can the 480 years be considered as 12 generations?   There is some support for this.    In the genealogy of the Levite priests are the following:

1. Aaron - lived in the generation of the Exodus and Wandering when Moses led Israel

2. Eleazar, son - lived in the generation of the Conquest when Joshua led Israel

3. Phinehas, son - lived in the early period of the Judges at the time of the Benjaminite war

4. Abishua, son

5. Bukki, son

6. Uzzi, son

7. Zerahiah, son

8. Meraioth, son

9. Amariah I, son

10. Ahitub I, son

11. Zadok I, son - lived during the period of the United Monarchy when David was king

12. Ahimaaz, son - lived during the period of the United Monarchy when David was king

13. Azariah, son - served as priest in the Temple when Solomon was king

Hence, there were 12 generations before Azariah became the first priest of the Temple.  Now a normal generation would be something like 25 years (assuming that by age 25, a male would have sired his first child, hence beginning the next generation).   Twelve generations would be something like 300 years.  If we add those 300 years to 967, Solomon's fourth year we get 1267 BC for the beginning of the Exodus and 1227 BC for the Conquest.   This comes remarkably close to the first mention of the Israelites by the Egyptian king Merneptah about 1220 BC.  

This remains merely a theory for a lack of a much more concrete theory.  If this theory is sound, then Moses and Joshua could be said to have flourished in the 13th and early 12th centuries BC.

The biblical text indicates that either 400 or 430 years covers the time of the Sojourn in Egypt for 4 generations (Gen 15:13-16).   The three generations of the ancestors of Aaron are the following:

1. Levi

2. Kohath

3. Amram

If we are to apply the same generational reckoning as we did from Aaron to Azariah to cover the time between the Exodus and the beginning of the construction of the Temple, we would have come up with 100 years (from 1267 BC), putting Levi in the 14th century BC or around 1367 BC, which was during the Amarna period.   

Now according to the biblical narrative, Levi's brother Joseph was sold as a slave to the Egyptians but gained his freedom because of his wisdom and eventually served the pharaoh himself.  At that time he interpreted the dream of the pharaoh that the kingdom would suffer from a famine and in order to prevent it from affecting Egypt he was given authority by the pharaoh to have the harvest stored so when the famine struck, there was still be grain for the people and even a surplus for surrounding nations.  Hence the reason for Levi's (and the rest of his brother's) migration was under the authority of Joseph to escape the famine in Canaan.  

The question then becomes, was there a famine in the 14th century BC?  Here is the problem...….famines were frequent occurrences in the Middle East.   We know of famines which occurred during the reigns of various pharaohs.   In more recent times, famine had been mentioned in histories of Egypt in AD 963-969, 1025, 1055-1056, 1064-1072, 1199-1202, 1264, etc.  

It is to be noted that the famine of Joseph didn't greatly affect the Egyptians because of the preemptive actions in anticipation for it.  It did, according to the narrative, affected Canaan which was the reason why Joseph's brothers came to Egypt to purchase grain.  There is no evidence of famine according to the Amarna archive, just some unrest among the Canaanite vassal princes making use of the Habiru.   

We are then left with examining the 400/430 years.  There are two ways of looking at this.  Either the 4 centuries are to be regarded as a genuine memory of a migration or as a symbolic number like the 480 years.  What favors the 400/430 years is that if it is added to 1267 BC we get 1667/1697 BC which is close to the estimated beginning of the invasion of the Hyksos into Egypt, placed usually about 1650 BC.  

However, fitting 3 generations into these 400/430 years seems to fall very short.   What may be the underpinning for this figure is the mentioned lifespans of the three generations of the ancestors of Moses and Aaron.  According to Exodus 6:16 to 20 the lifespans of those 3 generations were:

Levi - 137 years

Kohath - 133 years

Amram - 137 years

If we total the combined lengths of lifespan we get 407 years.  If we then add the age of Aaron at the time of the Exodus (83 years) we get 490 years.    This more than covers the 400/430 years of the Sojourn in Egypt.  But, the problem here is that this involves total lifespans, not generations, unless one can argue (unconvincingly) that each generation was born near the 100th year of the preceding ancestor, (i.e. Kohath was born in the 100th year of Levi, Amram was born in the 100th year of Kohath, Aaron was born in the 100th year of Amram, etc.)

An argument can be made that the 400 years should seen separately from the 3 generations.   This then takes us back to matching the 400 years to the time of the invasion of the Hyksos.   The 4 generations date from the 14th century and the 400 years date from the 17th century.    If we take this line of reasoning, however, we are then left with a discontinuity of 3 centuries.   With no way of tracking biblical chronology which had been dependent on a continuity of generations with the age when one ancestor sired the next generation, no correlation can be feasible to match biblical and Egyptian history.  That tracking ended with the Sojourn in Egypt.  

The next post will be an examination of biblical history using both a 14th century and 17th century Sojourn as a base and working backwards to see if there is any correlation with Egyptian history.

In order to attempt to match biblical to Egyptian history we must understand the biblical narratives and what "political history" can be gauged by them.

1. Abraham - migrates with his father Terah from Ur "of the Chaldees" to Haran in Aram where Terah                         died.

                  - migrates to Canaan leaving the family of his brother, there.

                  - famine - migrates to Egypt but Pharoah kicked him out and migrates back to Canaan

                  - separates from Lot who moves to the cities of the plain 

                  - Chedorlaomer and his allies defeat the various Canaanite tribes and captures Lot

                  - Abraham and his Amorite allies defeat Chedorlaomer near Damascus and recovers Lot

                  - Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed

                  - sojourns in Gerar but was kicked out by the king

                  - Ishmael and his mother banished

                  - Treaty of Beersheba between Abraham and Gerar

                  - son Isaac marries among kin from Aram

2. Isaac       - patriarch who doesn't leave Canaan

                  - famine - sojourns in Gerar but is forced out but retains peace with Gerar

3. Jacob      - marries among kin from Aram

                  - on his return to Canaan reconciles with brother Esau but separates soon after.

3. Joseph     - sold to Ishmaelite/Midianite caravaners on their way to Egypt

                  - sold to high Egyptian official

                  - eventually after several years becomes official of the Pharoah

                  - oversees the collection of grain in anticipation of famine

                  - when famine hits "in all the world" "all the countries came to buy grain"

                  - famine - Jacob sends sons to buy grain

                  - Joseph invites Jacob and family to migrate into Egypt

                  - Joseph collects all the money in Egypt and Canaan.

                  - when his Jacob dies he sends his entire court to Canaan to bury him.

Several observations from the narratives:

1. Abraham and his family were shepherds living in tents

2. Abraham was said to be rich and prosperous

3. His ability to defeat powerful eastern armies indicates his power and influence in Canaan

4. Abraham and his family maintained connections with their kin in Aram

5. There was famine in every generation forcing them to seek refuge in cities

6. Nomadic caravans had access to Egyptian markets

7. Joseph as an Egyptian official had authority in both Egypt and Canaan

8. The ability of Joseph to bring an Egyptian court to Canaan indicates that Canaan was under Egyptian rule and that this rule was stable.

The answer is that these conditions could have happened at anytime during the Middle Kingdom, the 2nd Intermediate Period, and the New Kingdom.   The evidence from the Middle Kingdom indicates some loose hegemonic rule as well as descriptions of Asiatics sending their caravans into Egypt.  The "Story of Sinuhe" set during the Middle Kingdom parallels the story of Joseph.  During the 2nd Intermediate Period the Hyksos had hegemony in Egypt as well as Canaan which allowed for access for Asiatics to Egyptian markets.   In the New Kingdom, while the evidence indicates that Egypt had control over Canaan.  The conflict between nomads and cities parallels situations described in the Amarna letters.

Abraham's family had access to Aram on east side of the upper Euphrates.   "Aram" in this case may be an anachronism for this time period.  The Aramaeans don't appear until the 13th century BC and don't take possession of upper Mesopotamia until the 10th century BC.  If Abraham had kin in that area they would either be Amoritic tribesmen or Hurrians.  We note that the opponents of the Egyptians during the New Kingdom were the Hurrian-speaking Mitannians before the Assyrians conquered their kingdom during the 13th century.

When powerful eastern armies were able to subjugate Canaanite cities remains unknown to history.  The alliance of Chedorlaomer comprised mainly Elamites and Babylonian states.  However there is no record either from Babylonia or Elam of empires stretching all the way to Canaan at anytime prior to Nebuchadnessar's Neo-Babylonian empire.   The Mitannians however had an empire stretching from northern Babylonia through the whole of northern Mesopotamia including Assyria and Mari and into northern Syria and southern Anatolia.  Northern Mesopotamia (including the "Aram") of the biblical narrative was known as Hanigalbat in cuneiform inscriptions during the Mitannian period.

The one event which might have been able to synchronize events - the famine which was "severe in all the world" (Gen. 41:57) is not discernable in the inscriptional records of the Middle East or in the archaeological record.   There is one famine which is discernable in the archaeological record, the so-called "4.2 kiloyear event" which did indeed have a world-wide compass but it is dated to the period c. 2200-2100 BC and lasted a century.   It is both too early and too long to be Joseph's  7-year famine.  

We are then left with really nothing to go on.   Famines, conflicts with cities, sojourns, extended families, concerns about succession, and migrations are the timeless activities of tent-dwelling shepherds.