What's Wrong With Egyptian Chronology?
Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI
Biblical Authority Ministries, June 24, 2025 (Donate)
Conventional or traditional (e.g., secular interpretation
of) Egyptian chronology has major problems. As a result, they add in an
extra few thousand years.[1]
Nevertheless, the researchers arguing for the secular view of history magnify
it and rarely question it when it comes to aligning archaeological and past
events in the Middle East.
Egyptian chronology methods have been shown to be errant repeatedly.[2]
Egyptologists groan at the inflated dates. And yet, here it is in textbooks and
technical articles as though it were the “gospel truth”.
Several years ago, some researchers got fed up with it and decided
to meticulously point out the problems with it. English Egyptologist David Rohl,
for example, was one of those researchers.[3]
Then Australian Egyptologist David Down (editor for Archaeological
Diggings) did further revisions and began decades of research that set him
on a journey trying to look at Egyptian events and dating to salvage it. Since
then, other have contributed work on this as well—John Ashton, Elizabeth
Mitchell, and so on.
Big Picture
Let me explain the problem from a big picture before we hone
in on some of the details. The Egyptian chronology comes from lists of
kings/pharaohs and how long they reigned.
Much of the information about these kings come from Manetho
who lists them. Manetho was an Egyptian priest living about 250 BC. He wrote a
book called Aegyptiaca in Greek which means History of Egypt. The
first thing you need to realize is that Manetho's lists are flawed.
(1) He wrote about Pharaohs who preceded him by over a millennium through secondary sources and are subjected to duplication, legends, and political biases.[4] Nevertheless, these are not as much of a major concern.
(2) Egyptian chronology uses radiocarbon dating, astronomical cycles (e.g., Sothic calendar), and pottery styles, but these are prone to assumptions and calibration errors. But even these are not a fatal concern.
(3) But the major flaw comes as a result of how these kings lists and their ages are treated. Modern secular chronologists stack kingly dynasties one on top of another, assuming Egypt was merely one nation that has one successive king/Pharaoh after another.
To anyone who knows basic information about Egypt, this approach is laughable! Egypt was known to have 3 kingdoms for much of its
duration! The kingdoms were:
1. Lower Kingdom
2. Middle Kingdom
3. Upper Kingdom
So, with a little basic research, one should easily realize
that these kings lists and dynasties of Egypt are not simply one on top of each
other. Instead, there was usually 3 kingdoms reigning at the same time each
with their own Pharaoh. The key is researching who was co-reigning where and
when.
Thus, many dynasties ruled concurrently (e.g., Upper vs. Middle
vs. Lower Egypt). Recognizing parallel reigns drastically shortens the
timeline. So, there is a false assumption of linear successions.
In our modern understanding—imagine if someone took all the
different governors of all 50 States of the USA and listed how long they reigned.
What would happen if someone just stacked all their respective reigns, one on
top of each other and then proclaimed the USA was thousands of years old! That would be incredibly flawed—inflating the age of the USA by thousands of years. But that
is essentially what happened with Egyptian dating!
Revised Egyptian Dating Is Useful
Naturally, the revised chronology of Egypt matches rather
well with a biblical timeline. It’s not an exact match and this is why biblical
chronology (e.g., Ussher[5],
Jones[6],
Hodge[7],
etc.) is obviously to be favored over Egyptian revised dating. God never errs.
Nevertheless, the revised Egyptian chronology is a
good confirmation of what we expect to find after diligent researchers corrected
the Egyptian chronology. John Ashton and David Down’s book Unwrapping
the Pharaoh’s is an excellent assessment of the revisions.
Because of the errors in traditional Egyptian chronology,
events like the Exodus are often placed in the wrong time. Scholars usually
associate it with Ramses II (13th century BC), yet revisions have it
earlier—around 1450 BC, during the end of the 13th Dynasty.
Archaeological layers at Jericho, Hazor, and Ai show
destruction consistent with the biblical conquest—but only if one accepts the revised
date for the Exodus (~1450 BC). The current secularized Egyptian timeline misses these
connections because of its inaccuracies.[8]
On the flip side, secular historians reject the biblical
timeline because they argue that it doesn’t match conventional Egyptian
chronology—and then reject the Bible's historical accounts (e.g., the Exodus
and Jericho) because they can't find them in the misaligned Egyptian record. By
the way, this is a vicious
circular argument—thus, fallacious.
Yet these events are fairly close to where they should be when
using the revised chronologies. See the Revised Dates in the Table for some
major events.
Timeline
Comparison: Conventional vs. Revised
|
Event |
Secular Date |
Revised Date |
Notes |
|
Early Dynastic Period |
3100 BC |
~2200 BC |
Correcting Overlap |
|
Old Kingdom (Pyramids) |
2686–2181 BC |
~2100–1900 BC |
Correcting overlaps |
|
Middle Kingdom |
2055–1650 BC |
~1900–1700 BC |
The time of Joseph |
|
Hyksos Rule (15th Dynasty) |
1650–1550 BC |
~1700–1450 BC |
Likely overlapped with late 13th Dynasty |
|
Exodus |
c. 1270 BC (Ramses II) |
~1450 BC |
Matches 1 Kings 6:1 and Judges timeline |
|
Conquest of Canaan |
~1200 BC |
~1410–1400 BC |
Matches with destruction layers (Jericho) |
|
United Kingdom (Saul-David) |
1050–930 BC |
Same |
Alignment begins here |
Conclusion
The traditional secular/conventional Egyptian chronology is
based on (1) inflated king lists, (2) incorrect assumptions by stacking one
king on top of another even though there were multiple kingdoms co-existing at the
same time, and (3) unreliable dating methods. When adjusted to reflect biblical
chronology, the archaeological record better confirms the historicity of the Exodus,
patriarchs, and conquest, and is more aligned with the authority of God’s Word.
Even with much better revised dates, it is always advisable
to use Biblical chronological dates which are closer to absolute—though biblical
chronologists can err as well, but the source document (i.e., the Bible) is superior
regardless.
[1]
Which defies the true
age of the earth.
[2]
For instance, see: Donovan Courville’s The Exodus Problem and Its
Ramifications.
[3]
For instance, see David Rohl’s Test of Time (AKA Pharaohs
and Kings).
[4] D.
Down and J. Ashton, Unwrapping the Pharaohs. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006.
[5] Ussher’s
The Annals of the World.
[6] Jones’
Chronology of the Old Testament.
[8] Wood,
B. (2008). "The Discovery of Joshua’s Ai.; Is There Evidence that the
Israelites Conquered Jericho?
