A Date for Abraham?!

[@seandegidon4672]

Wow, this is huge! Coupled with elements in the Abraham narrative specific to place and time (e.g. covenant ritual matching rituals of fealty to a king in 18th Century Mesopotamia) the cornerstone of the Abrahamic faiths is firmly rooted in real history, real places, real people.

[@greysenn2905]

I once read that Hammurabi had a personal name which became common after his death which is Hammurabi-ili or Ammurapi-ili...
Thus the last character "l" in 'mrpl might have been rooted to this suffix -ili.
Ammurapi-ili
'mrpl
Amraphel

[@a.t.ministries5376]

Where’d you read this?

[@greysenn2905]

@@a.t.ministries5376
Hammurabi-ili
“Hammurabi is my god”
“Hammurabi was honored above all other kings of the second millennium BC and he received the unique honor of being declared to be a god within his own lifetime. The personal name "Hammurabi-ili" meaning "Hammurabi is my god" became common during and after his reign.” ~ Wikipedia
You can search more further, see the reference... I just did a shallow search since I forgot the original source, its already been a year ago.

[@greysenn2905]

@@a.t.ministries5376 While Ammurapi is a variation of Hammurabi's name. A late tablet spells his name as such.

[@lowkeytheology]

Great stuff! I have the book coming as a Christmas gift

[@blacktuesdayfilms8636]

Hey @SpartanTheology I have seen you on channels like Trinityradio didn't know you followed a small (but informative) guy like dr. David Falk. Nice

[@lowkeytheology]

@@blacktuesdayfilms8636 yeah Adam from Linguas Amo told me about Dr Falk

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Thank you! And I hope you really enjoy the book. :)

[@frogpaste]

I looked for this video just to confirm. I just saw an interview on Dr. Sean McDowell's channel with archeologist Dr. Steve Collins. He believes he has found the city of Sodom, northeast of the Dead Sea and, based on archeological finds at those sites, he also dates Abraham to the 18th century BCE. Very cool to see people coming at this from two different angles and arriving at the same conclusion!

[@vedinthorn]

Unfortunately though, Steven Collins puts the destruction of Sodom in the mid 17th century, but that wouldn't mesh with Abraham being well alive at the time.

[@AnUnhappyBusiness]

This is an amazing channel, thank-you so much for making this material available to us. Hoping to order your book very soon!

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Thank you so much.... 😄

[@terrypellam6989]

Thank you for sharing you knowledge of Egypt and the Bible! Your videos are very interesting and insightful!

[@Thehaystack7999]

Exactly! Question, what do you know of Parennefer called Wennefer? I saw he was a cup barer and advisor to Ahkenaten. I found him while searching for something else. I find the change from Aten to Amun with Akhenaten’s children significant, and the location, and the children of the priests of Heliopolis.

[@exotericidymnic3530]

you just blew my mind with this video

[@CiliPB]

Your efforts are soooo valuable.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Thank you so much. 🙂

[@glenhall6775]

Loved this one! And your delivery is much better when you do it this way. I don’t mean to be a critic when I can’t comfortably speak in front of more than 5 people. If you would like to critique my work, I have several videos on Facebook where I lay cinder blocks with a trowel in each hand😁. It’s my one and only claim to fame. Keep up the good work.

[@toomanymarys7355]

Before I watch: Abraham has to live at a time when Elam was campaigning in the Levant.

[@Menzobarrenza]

This was incredibly useful. Thank you!

[@AGPArchivist]

Would it be correct to place the alliance of Shinar and the Battle of Siddim in circa 1740 B.C. (from adjusting the conventional date of the alliance of Babylon, Elam, and Larsa, 1767, based on your chronology of Hammurabi)? I'm trying to work out a rough timeline of Genesis and this is incredibly fascinating. God bless.

[@bartholomewtott3812]

This stuff is top notch

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Thank you. 😄 That is very encouraging.

[@milkydud]

This video and the one on his dad are the most interesting bits of data I've learned on post the mt ebal find

[@thomasmiddlebrook9541]

I am wondering if there has been any new data on the question of Hammurapi's name re: Amraphel? My understanding was that the lamed is not so easily dismissed as other consonants & vowels as a suffix, etc. I also thought that Hammurapi began with an ayin, not an aleph. Are these not worrisome (honest question!)

[@warrenwheatley6171]

As always... Good stuff! I'd love for you to learn basic animation and up your production value... I'm a history nerd (M. A.) so I personally don't mind your lecture style, but you may ultimately reach more people with better production, similar to the likes of Inspiring Philosophy who I know you've worked with. Love your popcorn videos too, your honesty in agreeing with and disagreeing with is refreshing.

[@mariadelpilarllona4753]

More please

[@georgesparks7833]

Love this one, great stuff. Rock on...

[@Xenotypic]

interesting video, like all of them!

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Thank you.

[@Xenotypic]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Have you seen where people have been talking about finding the "real" Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia?
Do you have any thoughts on this? Is there a good defense of the current traditional Sinai?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Hi @@Xenotypic
Thank you for your great questions.
> Have you seen where people have been talking about finding the "real" Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia?
I have. This view was started by Ron Wyatt and was popular in America during the 1990s. It had almost drifted completely out of public consciousness until "Patterns of Evidence: Red Sea Miracle" breathed into it new life.
> Do you have any thoughts on this?
I do. Here are a small selection of those thoughts. The view makes the following claims:
1. Mt. Sinai was a volcano based upon a geological reading of Exodus 19:18 and that Jabal al-Lawz is the closest active volcano near the Sinai. This ignores the evidence that many mountains within the peninsula experienced geothermal activity, e.g., a chain of hot springs that transverse across the southern Sinai (El-Rayes, Arnous, and Aboulela, 2014).
2. “Yam Suf” doesn't have to mean "sea of reeds" but could mean “sea at the end,” so the Red Sea was the Gulf of Aqaba, not the lakes and estuary near Egypt. However, Egyptian texts place Migdol, a sea (ym) of reeds (twfy), Pihahiroth, and Piramesses (capital of Egypt) all within close proximity to each other. Also, Migdol is supposed to be in close proximity to the border fortress of Tjaru. Tjaru is at the site of Tell Hebua near the northwest coast of the Sinai and is nowhere near the Gulf of Aqaba. This alone disqualifies Wyatt’s identification of both the Gulf of Aqaba as the Red Sea and Jabal al-Lawz as Mt. Sinai.
3. The Gulf of Aqaba shows a virtual underwater sand bridge. This ignores the fact that “virtual” means that there isn’t an actual sand bridge. And if the sea were parted, crossing the Gulf of Aqaba would mean a mountain climb down and a mountain climb up.
4. A petroglyph of a cow was found at Jabal al-Lawz. Of course, cattle worship was ubiquitous across the Ancient Near East.
5. A weird split rock at Jabal al-Lawz marks the place where Moses split the stone and the water flowed (Exod 17:6; Num 20:8-11). Of course, I've seen a lot of weird rocks in the desert. And there is no spring near this split rock-springs are marked by shale deposits. Furthermore, the biblical text says that Moses struck the rock, but there is nothing at all in the text to suggest that the rock was actually split. This is imagination and eisegesis run amok.
6. Migdol is identified as the mountain range on the Sinai coast of the Gulf of Aqaba. Conveniently, the Egyptians left of a picture of Migdol at Karnak and it was a fortress, not a mountain range.
7. Chariot wheels were found at the bottom of the Red Sea. No Egyptian chariot wheel ever looked like the chariot wheel that Wyatt found. In short, these chariot wheels are modern forgeries. I am planning on doing a video on Egyptian chariot wheels.
That covers some of my thoughts of the positive arguments for Jabal al-Lawz being Mt. Sinai. I have sidestepped the negative evidence arguments for their lack of merit.
> Is there a good defense of the current traditional Sinai?
Yes and no. We don’t know which mountain exactly was the original Mt. Sinai. The difficulty is that there are many mountains in the Sinai that could fit the profile. We know that Jabal al-Lawz is not Mt. Sinai because it depends upon Gulf of Aqaba being the Red Sea. So, it is a lot easier to figure that a site isn’t Mt. Sinai than it is to prove which one is.

[@Xenotypic]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Thanks for the very thorough answer. I haven't seen "Patterns of Evidence", so I didn't know they promoted that claim. Looking forward to you chariot wheel video.
Also, if you don't mind me asking one more quick (somewhat unrelated) question, do you subscribe to the early or late authorship of Daniel?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@Xenotypic I generally lean towards an early authorship of Daniel. However, without having really delved deep into the text critical issues, I cannot say that there aren't considerations that might modify that view. I take this position somewhat pragmatically since I've seen a lot of late authorship views crumble under the weight of the evidence. But I also know that books need to be assessed on a case by case basis, sometimes even a passage by passage basis. I've done this with some biblical books but I haven't done it yet with Daniel.

[@vulteiuscatellus4105]

I know we disagree on a lot but I’d be interested in your take on Gard Granerød’s book _Abraham and Melchizedek_ which attempts to debunk Genesis 14 as a late invention. I read it years ago and found its arguments dismissive and unpersuasive, but Finkelstein and Na’aman seem to have embraced it.

[@karlokulas5677]

I had no idea Patterns of evidence has so many holes

[@sovereignhero9496]

The dates for Abraham are 2008 AM - 2183 AM. We should sync dates with The Word, not the other way around.
If we can't step away from man's folly, we will fall into it.

[@darkblade4340]

The only problem I have with identifying Amarphel with Hammurabi is that, when taken in conjunction with having Joseph during the 15th Dynasty of Egypt, it doesn’t seem to allow for the length of time that the Bible says was between Abraham and Joseph.

[@nickdixon8115]

ya this is the one for abraham going to rewatch.

[@brianpeachey]

How strong is the link between Amraphel and Hammurabi? It seems to be that the name is the only connection. I'm not familiar with the language. I have read from older scholars that deny this connection. I know that sometimes as new discoveries are made the understanding of a language can be updated.
In SHINAR-SANGAR AND ITS MONARCH AMRAPHEL by W. F. Albright, he writes that Luckenbill discovered the true reading of the name Hammurabi in Amorite. He states that it is Ammu-rdwih and it is impossible to compare the Hebrew (which I am unable to paste here.) Is this just old scholarship?
I actually am personally interested in his article, mainly because the region that he introduces as Shinar is quite close to me. I currently live near Sinjar and have many Yazidi friends from that region.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Hi Brian, thank you for the question. I don't think that Luckenbill's reading holds much sway any longer since we have now found the name Ammurapi in other ANE contexts, e.g., Ugarit.

[@thegoblin957]

What's your opinion of the book of Abraham? And will you ever do a video about it?

[@sidtom2741]

it's already been disproved. It's an egyptian burial manuscript, which Joseph Smith explicitly said was "written by his (Abraham) own hand, upon papyrus". Mormons did some quick thinking and said "Oh! It's God's revelation!"

[@deiansalazar140]

This brings to attention-who the hell was Nimrod? And what was the Tower of Babel?
Sorry just binging your videos after discovering them while looking for responses to Michael Joneses videos

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

Nimrod is Enmerkar. « The beginning of his kingdom were Babylone, Erech, Akkad, Ur of the market… » The first king of Erech was Enmerkar. And Kar means hunter « a mighty hunter before the Lord » Enmer (N,M,R) - Kar.

[@nathanielus5296]

​@@isaakleillhikar8311 or Sargon of Akkad

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

@@nathanielus5296 Too late. And he wasn't "The First to be a mighty man on the earth."

[@moisessalazar4432]

I thought Shinar -> Shumer/Sumer, like the land of shinar ?, and Babilon(gateway to the gods/heaven) could be either Eridu o Babilon?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Hello Moises, that would seem intuitive. However, there are two problems. First, is the etymological and philological problem. The name of Sumer in ancient Sumerian was actually ki-en-gi(-r). Deriving "shinar" (sh-n-`-r) from kiengir presents etymological difficulties. The other problem relates to the semantics or the question of what did "shinar" mean to the people of the Levant. Yet, Gen 10:10 stats "Babel (Babylon) and Erech (Uruk) and Akkad and Calneh in the land of Shinar," which places Shinar between Sumer and Mari along the Euphrates in the region that was known as Babylonia.

[@toomanymarys7355]

@@ancientegyptandthebible How is Uruk not pertaining to Sumer proper? There is not a Chaldean/Shinar distinction in ancient texts. Shinar as Mesopotamia southeast of Mari seems to make more sense.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@toomanymarys7355 There is some overlap between Sumer and Babylonia. However, the description of Shinar in Gen 10:10 does include area north of the Sumer region. As for Chaldea, that's in north Mesopotamia. It's more as to what is a better fit geographically and historically. And there is some ambiguity with any of these regional designations.

[@nathanielus5296]

Didn't Hammurabi reigned from 1792 BC to 1750 BC? And Neferhotep I from 1747 BC to 1736 BC? How could they be connected?

[@nickdixom543]

very possible

[@johnslaughter5475]

Does this work with Amenhotep II (1425-1400 BC) as the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

That's going to depend largely upon what hermeneutical assumptions you bring to the text.

[@johnslaughter5475]

@@ancientegyptandthebible I keep my mind open. There seem to be several interpretations as to just when the Exodus occurred. Dating that far back can be a bit tricky.

[@deiansalazar140]

Why do you think Scholars have rejected the identification of Amraphel with Hammurabi nowadays?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

I've answered this question a few times. Please, see the other comments for my perspective on this. Thanks!!!!

[@darkblade4340]

I thought Hammurabi was 1792-1750 BC

[@davidhollins2582]

As you are criticising David Rohl on the basis of a Hammurabi-Neferhotep 1 synchronicity, it is worth saying thatbon Wikipedia, there are a few citations to this claim being widely disputed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi towards the end under “Modern Rediscovery”.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Hi David,
Well, in all fairness, this is just one basis upon which I criticize Rohl and others. And I did say that any attempt to date a patriarch was controversial. But I think it is important to tease out why the idea that Amarphel is Hammurabi has been rejected. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not give you the reasons why it is disputed. Let’s go through the thought process to see what is really being rejected and why this is controversial:
Does Gen 14:1 show textual evidence of being a later addition or gloss? No. The chapter is an excursus, but that is not unusual in the Pentateuch.
Is the “Amarphel of Shinar” reading contradicted by other text-type families (LXX, SP, DSS)? No.
Is there disagreement that “Shinar” is Babylon? No.
Is there disagreement that Babylon has a complete kings list? Mostly no. It is thought that there may be some kings that reigned under a year that were dropped out, but all the major kings were included. In the Ancient Near East, this is as complete as a kings list gets.
Is there disagreement that Babylon’s 1st Dynasty was an Amorite dynasty? No.
Is there disagreement that the name “Hammurabi” comes from the Amorite name "Ammurapi"? No.
Was the Hebrew transliterated wrong? No, standard SBL transliteration was used.
Was the Cuneiform transliterated wrong? No, a standard Semitic transliteration equivalent was used.
Is there a mismatch between the transliterations (apart from the last letter that is expected anyway)? No. There is a slight mismatch between the initial guttural letter, but that inconsistency is resolved when the original Amorite name is taken into account. Most scholars would not deny a positive linguistic match on the basis of that inconsistency. The reason is because Amoritic is a Semitic language that bridges Hebrew and Akkadian.
Is there any other viable linguistic match with Amarphel in the Babylonian kings list? No. Everyone agrees here.
Excluding Gen 14:1, does anyone (other than Rohl) contest the other ANE synchronisms in connection with Hammurabi? No. The dating for Hammurabi is firmly in the 18th century BC.
So, if there is agreement across the board with the premises, why is the conclusion rejected among biblical scholars? Two reasons.
1. Fundamentalist scholarship rejects the identification because it doesn’t play nice with American Biblical Chronology. This identification lowers the date of Abraham by 200 years.
2. Liberal scholarship (the overwhelming majority) rejects the identification because these scholars tend to accept the Documentary Hypothesis and/or Biblical Minimalism as foundational. These paradigms champion the ideas that (a) the Book of Genesis was written during the post-exilic period and (b) that the patriarchs were mythological figures. If Abraham was a fictional myth and all the kings mentioned in Gen 14 were myths, then Amarphel cannot be Hammurabi but must also be a myth introduced into the text after the Israelites returned from Babylon.
In short, it’s not the premises being rejected. It is the implications of the conclusion that are being rejected. ANE specialists generally don’t have a dog in that fight. So, we have a bit more freedom to follow the evidence or even reconsider theories that biblical scholars may have rejected for less than ideal reasons.

[@blacktuesdayfilms8636]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Hey Dr. Falk I wanted to get some thoughts on this. So the main reason they reject this synchronism is because of the presupposition of accepting the documentary hypothesis? Not because the evidence doesn't support it? Also what would the implications be if this synchronism was legit? That Genesis has much older material that can go back to that time period? Thanks for the feedback

[@davidhollins2582]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Thanks for taking the time to explain all that. I can see the way these names work as Rohl uses the same idea to equate Nimrod with Enmer. The Wiki entry on Amraphael says Rohl equates him with Amar-Sin, third ruler of Ur III and notes that Shinar can refer to Sumeria as well as Babylon. The most interesting part talks about the Rabbinic tradition, which equates Amraphael with Nimrod:
“Rabbinic sources such as Midrash Tanhuma Lekh Lekhah 6, Targum Yonatan to Exodus 14:1, and Eruvin 53a[6]:2 identify Amraphel with Nimrod. This is also asserted in the 11th chapter of the Sefer haYashar, attested from the early 17th century:
And Nimrod dwelt in Babel, and he there renewed his reign over the rest of his subjects, and he reigned securely, and the subjects and princes of Nimrod called his name Amraphel, saying that at the tower his princes and men fell through his means.
- Sefer haYashar 11
Genesis Rabbah 42 says Amraphel was called by three names: Cush, after his father's name (Gen. 10:8), Nimrod, because he established rebellion (mrd) in the world, and Amraphel, as he declared (amar) "I will cast down" (apilah).”

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@blacktuesdayfilms8636 Well, even without this synchronism, we already know that there is much older material in Genesis that goes much further back than the 5th cent BC date proposed by liberal scholarship. Perhaps, the biggest implication is that if the patriarchs can be connected to other historical events and figures; the patriarchs would no longer be mythology but hagiography. That might not seem like much of a difference, but it is. Hagiography implies that the was some truth to the existence of these figures instead of none at all.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Hi @@davidhollins2582
> Thanks for taking the time to explain all that. I can see the way these names work as Rohl uses the same idea to equate Nimrod with Enmer.
Your reply is difficult to engage because there is a lot of nuance here. So please accept that I might not be able to respond you to your satisfaction. But I've given this a lot of thought, and tried my best.
Amarphel is a pretty easy because we have a name that fits well, a defined geographical milieu, a well-known historical context, a solid textual record, and a lot of scholarly consensus where it matters. I don't have an opinion yet for Nimrod because we aren't working with the same advantages and evidence. I don't think that there's anything prima facie to discredit Nimrod being Enmerkar, but the records of the 1st dynasty of Uruk are sketchy at best. So Rohl's identification would be speculation, not necessarily wrong, just speculation.
> The Wiki entry on Amraphael says Rohl equates him with Amar-Sin, third ruler of Ur III and notes that Shinar can refer to Sumeria as well as Babylon.
With Amar-Sin (ca. 2030-2021 BC), we have more evidence at our disposal. Amar-Sin matches 3 of the 5 consonants. So the match is not as strong to begin with. And while Assyriologists have debated over the connection between Shinar and the Akkadian Sumer, by the time of the Bible was written, the Hebrew term Shinar had lost any association it might have had with Sumer. At the time of the writing of the Pentateuch, Uruk and Akkad were known to be city states within the land of Shinar (Gen 10:10), and Ur was recognized as its own city (Gen 11:28,31; 15:7). And given the Hebrew writers tendencies towards retrojection, would it not be strange if that a distinction made so early in the narrative was later abandoned for a more arcane association? Moreover, other western Semitic languages had already lacked this association by the time of the exodus. For example, in Ugaritic (ca. 14th cent. BC) Shinar is just a synonym for Babylon.
Amar-Sin also broaches a problem in the identification of the Chedorlaomer king of Elam. Chedorlaomer made the kings of the Sodom and Gomorrah serve him for 12 years and in the 14th year he came to make war against them. While I have not discussed the other kings in Gen 14 (since I don't like speculation), Amar-Sin as Amarphel creates a problem with what we know about Elam. Overlapping or in close proximity to the time of Amar-Sin's 9-year reign, the kings who ruled Elam were Eparti I, Gir-Namme II, Tazitta II, Lurak-Luhhan, and Hutran-Temti. None of these Elamite kings ruled for 12 years and none of the names remotely match the Hebrew. Around the reign of Hammurabi, there were three kings of Elam: Siwe-Palar-Hupak, Kuduzulush I, and Kutir-Nahhunte I. Each of these kings ruled over 20 years, and the last two names are a partial match with the Hebrew Chedorlaomer.
While Amar-Sin could be Amarphel, I don’t think it’s likely.
> The most interesting part talks about the Rabbinic tradition, which equates Amraphael with Nimrod:
Okay, I’m going to show my bias here. A lot of traditions in the Talmud muddle history instead of clarifying it, and the literature itself can be difficult to read and easily misunderstood. While I have great respect for Jewish traditions (and even practice some myself), I have not found much in the Talmud that is useful.

[@OrthodoxofUSA]

What do you think of the interpretation of the 430 years mentioned in Exodus 12, that states that it started 30 years after God made that promise to Abraham, when Ishmael started to castle Isaac, and included not just the time in Egypt, but the time spent in Canaan prior to that as well?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Hi OrthodoxofUSA, great to hear from you!!! The Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch state that the 430 years includes both time in Egypt and Canaan. So the textual evidence supports the idea that the autographs in Exod 12:40 said both Egypt and Canaan. However, the other details are not well supported. Exod 6 suggests that the Israelites were not in Egypt more than 350 years, so their time in Canaan was significantly more than 30 years. And we have no evidence that Isaac has a castle.

[@OrthodoxofUSA]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Hello. My theory was, and please tell me if you disagree, that God made the promise to Abraham of 400 years 30 years before it would start. So, the departure of the Israelites in Exodus 12:40 was 430 years after the promise was made, but not 430 years after it came into affect. The promise is made in Genesis 15:13. In Genesis 16:3, it says Abram dwelt in Canaan for ten years, and at the end of the chapter, it says he was 86, so he was probably 76 when the promise was made. When Isaac was born, Abraham was 100 (Genesis 21:5). So, 24 years would have passed. When Isaac was weaned, Ishamel mocked him (Genesis 21:9). I'v heard that it was a practice in Canaan at that time for children to be weaned as late as five or six, but I could be wrong about that. If, however, that is the case, perhaps the 400 years starts then. I like how you caught my typo of "castle" instead of "hassle".

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@OrthodoxofUSA It's possible but difficult to prove.

[@OrthodoxofUSA]

@@ancientegyptandthebible That makes sense.

[@pyro1813]

According to Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, Abraham lived from 1996 B.C. to 1821 B.C. and Joseph lived from 1745 B.C. to 1635 B.C. Dr. Jones' book is entitled "The Chronology of the Old Testament" and comes with charts on a CD. Appendix F has "Dates for Major Biblical Events". This book is very comprehensive, scholarly researched, and well written with many references.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

> According to Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, Abraham lived from 1996 B.C. to 1821 B.C. and Joseph lived from 1745 B.C. to 1635 B.C.
You strike me as an older adult and not some Millennial. So, I’m going to tell you the truth straight up. I’m not going to sugar coat it for you. You’re probably going to be angry with me. I can live with that because at least I’ve told you the truth. What you do with the truth is your decision.
The fact is I don’t think any scholar would take Jones seriously, myself included. His PhD was in geology, and his ThD was in who-knows-what and from who-knows-where. I was unable to track his other credentials down, which is saying something since dissertations from accredited institutions are normally easy to track down.
It is clear from his writing that he does not have a sound grasp of history or the critical issues of chronology. Anyone who thinks that Ussher’s “dates were almost universally accepted until the mid-nineteenth century…” (iii) really has no idea what he’s talking about. Ussher’s dates were hotly debated for over a century after their publication because they were dependent upon lunar dating. His chronology came to be uncritically accepted among American Evangelicals because it was included in the Scofield Reference Bible (AD 1909).
Jones holds staunchly to the Ussher chronology. Thus, he still holds to a 4004 BC date of creation and places the exodus to 1491 BC, just like Ussher did (24).
He also dates the flood to 2348 BC (26), which just happens to be after all Pyramids at Giza and the Stepped Pyramid at Saqqara were built. He also makes the classical error of attributing the date of Abraham's birth to the 70th year of Terah (25). This is a tell-tale sign that he is incompetent at chronology.
In examining the exodus issue, “This writer has done not a little investigation into this matter having examined the findings of L. Wood, J. Davis, M. Unger, Petrie, Breasted, Eerdmans, H.H. Rowley, Gardner, Hall, Harrison, W.F. Albright, Bunsen, J. Free, Sir J. Gardiner Wilkinson, and S. Schults to name but a few.” (49). All the best scholars of the 1940s. When did he write this revision of the book, 2002? Where are the recent authors in this list?
His handling of the Egyptian material is just out in left field, e.g., “the City of Rameses (older names =Tanis, Zoan or Avaris)” (51). No, Tanis and Zoan are not older names for the City of Ramesses. And these names are not even the same city as Ramesses.
> Dr. Jones' book is entitled "The Chronology of the Old Testament" and comes with charts on a CD. Appendix F has "Dates for Major Biblical Events". This book is very comprehensive, scholarly researched, and well written with many references.
Well, I would say the book is practically worthless. The references of generally low quality. Why anyone uses Breasted or Budge anymore is beyond me. He is dependent upon commentaries that were probably out of date when he wrote his first edition in 1993 (I read his 15th edition, © 2002). He frequently uses Josephus-almost always a mistake. He shuns good critical methodology, taking a KJV/MT only stance. And he takes a primarily American Biblical Chronology perspective, with all the awful baggage that comes with it (7).
Okay, I don’t think I need to beat a dead horse. But, you did say that the book is “scholarly researched, and well written with many references.” What I read was a terrifying example of shoddy scholarship. I would flunk a student who turned this in as a thesis. And this has nothing to do with religious beliefs. I am a believer myself. This has everything to do with the scholarly rigour. I'm sorry, but the work is just poorly done.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@dantespowers2791 No fair. I resemble that comment.... 🤔

[@bonbon_nextlevel]

Ok so if I got this, we can establish (based on the dates I've collected from some of your videos):
Abraham c. 1750 BC (18th century BC)
Joseph c. 1640 BC (17th century BC)
Exodus/Moses c. 1265 BC +/- 7 years (13th century BC)
I'm curious as to whether we can establish Noah c. 2900 BC (c. 30th century BC maybe? - Jemdet Nasr Period). I'm basing this off of the following paper:
C. A. Hill, "A Time and a Place for Noah,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 53, no. 1 (2001): 24-40.
Do you think it's legit or if it's too early/late?

[@voymasa7980]

Did that dating line up with the timeframe of the city of Avaris occupied by semitic peoples?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Yes, there are Semites already at Avaris in the 18th century BC.

[@voymasa7980]

@@ancientegyptandthebible i was just looking at Genesis 10:10, and 14:1-9 (trust but verify, Acts 17:11.) Brown-Driver-Briggs also identifies Amraphel with Ammurabi of Babylon.

[@user-mi4sb3bu4r]

Could the rulers of Egypt have been called pharaohs in the time of Abraham?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

No, this is a retrojection in the text. The term "pharaoh" to mean the king began during the reign of Thutmosis III. I hope that helps... 😊

[@user-mi4sb3bu4r]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Edith and Meir Lubetsky, "New Inscriptions and Seals Relating to the Biblical World" (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012) стр. 84

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@user-mi4sb3bu4r An excellent citation for this. 😊

[@user-mi4sb3bu4r]

@@ancientegyptandthebible were they called kings?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@user-mi4sb3bu4r Yes, they were called kings.

[@beeloobhai9200]

Dude u just spoken urdu, alif, mey, rey,pey, and laam plz reaserch on that

[@nickdixom543]

traditionally i thought Abraham was ca. 2100 BC.
Now i am not so sure after looking into it.
However i cant say for certain.
3100 BC is wat i am leaning to now. However idk for sure.
Ill listen, you might have some info i dont.

[@nickdixom543]

the Egyptian dates and Hebrew dates being off but the same events being seen-
this doesn't help much either just saying.
in study sometimes its like, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
when are they?

[@nickdixom543]

right- , that is true too. I got an English copy of that list of kings on my pc for when i need it for side reference.

[@nickdixom543]

shinar= Akadia or Summer

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@nickdixom543 The "traditional" date, which is not really traditional, is based upon a selective reading of the biblical texts and should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

[@nickdixom543]

@@ancientegyptandthebible agreed

[@nickdixom543]

Moses is a lot easier. I mean we all agree on the same base timeframe (we aren't millenniums away from each other just a couple centuries off from each other at most) unlike the patriarchs.

[@elmajraz6019]

David Rohl makes synchronism between Amarphel is Amar-Sin (only takes first three letters, and the "peh" as the last letter, since El is a new word which means God). He also says Tidal with Tishdal, and Kutir-Lagamar with Chedorlaomer. By saying that, he saw no problem with Joseph at the time of Amenemhet and Senusret, who were before Hammurabi.
What are your thoughts?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

My thoughts are that, without Rohl's whacked new chronology, all his ideas fall to dust.

[@elmajraz6019]

@@ancientegyptandthebible true, but we can't do that, can we? Forget his chronology for now, what do you think of those synchronism? Can it be worked out?
His chronology could either be its cause, or it could be its effect. Or both.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

​@@elmajraz6019 No, I think those "synchronisms" are problematic for Rohl's view. The problem is not so much Rohl's selection of kings, but how he interprets the identities of those kings.
The problem is that we have no dates at all for Tishdal. And on top of that, Rohl asserts Kutir-Lagamar as a distinct reign from any other king for which he arbitrarily asserts a date without evidence. He has no warrant for dating Tishdal and Kutir-Lagamar when he does.
But the problem is that Kutir-Lagamar was probably an epithet for Kutir-Nahhunte I (per the Spartoli tablets collection), who therefore would date to the 18th c BC. This later date would be highly problematic for Rohl, since this would be after Rohl's dates for Joseph (ca. early 19th c BC). There is actually no problem with Kutir-Nahhunte I being Chedorlaomer, as he is one of three potential candidates for the Elamite king that was contemporary with Hammurabi. However, the data just refuses to play nice with Rohl's theories.

[@elmajraz6019]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Joseph is early 19th Century? 215 years from his Exodus date 1447 BC only brings to 16/17th century. How did you conclude an early 19th c BC?
Abraham then would've been 18/19th Century, same time with Kutir Lagamar and Amar-Sin at the very least (according to his chronology).

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@elmajraz6019 You see, that's a problem. If Rohl doesn't use his inconsistent chronology, everything he says falls to bit. Furthermore, there is so much evidence against a 1447 BC exodus that it's no longer a viable position.
For his part, Rohl holds to an exodus at the end of the Dynasty 13 under the reign of Dudimose. The only way he can have Dynasty 13 ending in 1447 BC is if his uses his self-contradictory "new" chronology. Otherwise, if he used a chronology that didn't contradict itself, he would be forced to place the exodus during ca. 1650 BC.
Nevertheless, Rohl dates Abram to the late 20th century BC ("Test of Time", 109), and Joseph as contemporary to Amenemhat III, whose dates are 1875-1831 BC (the 19th c BC) ("Test of Time", 135). The only way Rohl can get a date for Joseph in the 16/17th century is be completely messing up the chronology. So again, we are back to the problem that the only way this works for Rohl is to tamper with the chronology.
Moreover, the sojourn was no shorter than 215 years, but it could have been as long as 350 years, and was probably closer to the 350 end of things. The fact is the numbers just don't work in Rohl's favour, which is why he plays fast and loose with the dates.

[@criticalbasedtheory]

I see that conflating Amraphel with Hammurabi was proposed in 1888, but has largely been abandoned in recent decades because it translates to “Hammurabi is my lord” because of the “el” added to the end. Can you address this? It seems like most scholars in the field today reject the idea that this passage is referring to Hammurabi and that view has not been popular since the previous century

[@batman105able]

Did Abraham exist ?

[@itsmyname767]

will there be digital option for the book?

[@thewayofthomas1661]

If Abraham and the Pharaoh must interact, it would be in Canaanite territory as the bible says, time of Thutmose 3.

[@darkblade4340]

The Bible says that Abraham and Pharaoh interacted in Egyptian territory. “Now there was a famine in the land. So Abraham went down to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the land.” Genesis 12:10. Also, Abraham being as late as Thutmose III (or even Thutmose I) is outright impossible.

[@thewayofthomas1661]

@@darkblade4340 So in you opinion, which Pharaoh is this and why?

[@nickdixom543]

remember though.
there was roughly only 40 people living at most (the 12 -13 sons, their wives and children- would equal up to 40 people at the most) that were jews once Joseph's family came to Egypt.
there has to be enough of a time for the Jews to multiply into the thousands in Egypt.
400 years or 430 years isnt a problem because as we jews and christians know
400 is a base for 40 and base for ten. it would just mean a complete set time by God that was a long time. In gematria that's all it would mean. So doesn't have to be around 400 years or 430 years exactly being the base numbers in apoctalyptic form. even though exodus is not an apoctalyptic book.
Just has to be enough time for the Jews to realistically populate from a few tens of people at the very least.

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

But sire! The Abraham story in the Bible doesn’t ever mention any Amorites…
…

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

But good sir! Abraham comes from northern Mesopotamia, that there's Amorite land! And the names of them Bible folks are Amoritic imperfective names. 😉

[@vedinthorn]

Wouldn't this mean that Sodom and Gomorrah had to be destroyed by God somewhere before the end of Hammurabi?

[@TrinityHallissey]

Only if Abraham’s tale with hammurabi takes place during the early years of his reign

[@mrb2233]

Mr.David, if you put the date for Abraham in the 18th century bc, I guess that also moves the date for the flood to a later date?
--
And I guess according to the Bible, no ancient remains should be older than the flood, including Egyptian ones?
Any thoughts?

[@TheForeverMan]

did you just say HAMMURAPI lived in the 18th century???

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Indeed, Hammurapi reigned for 43 years and his dates are ca. 1765-1722 BC. We find several synchronisms for him, and he was contemporary with Samsi-Addu I of Assyria (ca. 1780-1756 BC), Rim-Sim I of Larsa (ca. 1794-1735 BC), Zimri-Lim of Mari (ca. 1756-1741 BC), and Neferhotep I of Egypt (ca. 1745-1734 BC). So, Hammurapi has to be reigning before the death of Samsi-Addu I (ca. 1756 BC), and he has to be alive when he conquered both Zimri-Lim and Rim-Sin I (ca. 1734 BC), and he then ruled Larsa for an additional 13 years until his death. I don't think that there is any more wiggle room here than say a decade or two, so Hammurapi's dates are firmly in the 18th century BC.
I know that other published sources will give different dates, but I would suggest that the methodology used for those sources is probably woefully out of date. A lot has changed in chronology in just the past 10 years thanks to the introduction of computers and their ability to check chronologies for consistency and error. I shake my head when I hear of someone still using the Mesopotamian high and middle chronologies.

[@nickdixon8115]

No Nimrod isnt Hammurabi
its obvious to me now that Nimrod and Abraham living at the same time are just legends. found in Jubilees and Talmudic Jasher.
Genesis is obviously the stand alone history if so.- still written roughly 500 years after the fact (Abraham- joseph) so who knows for sure.
I am still putting money on Enmerkar (ca. 3400-3100 BC) being the real nimrod.

[@nathanielus5296]

Nimrod is Sargon of Akkad

[@nickdixon8115]

@@nathanielus5296 how do u get that? nimrod in Gen 10: 9-12 settled Babylon, Uruk, Akkad Kalneh Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah and Resen
Now Sargon I was one of the greatest kings of Mesopotamian in ca. 2300 BC. However, Sargon did not build uruk (im sure the Babylon referred to here is eridu) or those other cities at their foundations. This dates back to Enmerkar ca. 3400- 3100 BC
remember the Tower of Babel is supposed to have happened even before Egypt was founded as a civilization ca. 3150 BC

[@nickdixon8115]

@@nathanielus5296 ps even Uruk dates some were between 4000- 3100 BC in its founding
so how do you get that Sargon was Nimrod? that's almost over 1000 years before sargon was even born.

[@DeAngeloJohnson-ee9bt]

What? Who said nimrod was hammurabi

[@IZZY46099]

Shiner is Sumer, Not Babylon

[@mitcharndt8791]

Oh wow 👏 that's why your not getting the views you deserve, your reveling some spiritualy heavy truths. To add to this, In the book of jasher Nimrods name is changed to Amraphel after the tower of babel fell, amraphel meaning "he made us fall", wich means nimrod is hamarapi (an amorite). Ok, gen. 14-13 says paraphrasing that Abram the hebrew dwelt in the land of amorites and were confederate with them and fought in this big war with these 318 trained men(anak in hebrew, who are identified many times as giants throughout the bible, captains whom had their own armies, so he was pretty stacked just a side note) so this means that abram was an amorite, because Hebrews didn't exist in those days. Paleo hebrew in 900 bc can barely even be considered a thing because it's identical to its parent, phonecian , and really didn't establish its own identity until around about 500 bc. After greek, wich is commonly confused as stemming out of hebrew, was well established for 2-300 years btw. This all means that Abram fought side by side with, plot twist, Nimrod. It doesn't get any more clear than Ezekiel 16 3 god speaks to daniel "thy birth and nativity is of the land of Canaan, thy father was an amorite and thy mother an hittite." This father known to be Abram, obvi. So a revelation here, you wanna study the biblical israelites deeper? Study the historical amorites. They are one in the same. The israelites hated the Judean god yahweh, and wared with the judeans over and over in the bible. Remember, Yahweh rested on the 7th day, but the father of Jesus, worketh until this very day therefor Jesus works, and the Pharisees God, whom rested on the 7th day, was the devil and father of lies. Jesus was only sent for the lost sheep of Israel, NOT judeans. The pharisees actually only gave one reason for not accepting Jesus, a racial reason, because he came from Galilee. So Jesus wasn't Jewish, and israelites (amorites), whom are severely misunderstood, are distinctly different from Judeans, even enemies of them.

[@pansepot1490]

Looks like you have a date for Amarphel. The fact that he was mentioned in the story of Abraham doesn’t guarantee that they lived in the same time. Afaik Genesis is the result of millennium oral tradition that at some point got written down and underwent a process of editing centuries later before arriving to us in its current form.
The gospels were written mere decades after Jesus yet scholars can’t pinpoint the exact date of the birth of Jesus because various historical figures/facts mentioned in connection with the birth don’t overlap. An error of few years in a decades old story can easily become an error of centuries when the story is so much older.

[@501Mobius]

This is true. If a name matches a name that has been retrojected then the match is merely to a name at the wrong time or place. I don't see the politics in those four empires at the east end of Mesopotamia joining forces to raid some cities over 1000 miles away. Plus as David Falk has stated unless your army is the one one leading the conquest you are a vassal.
Since Elam was collecting the tribute Babylon and Mari were vassals. I have no idea who the fourth king was.

[@kwameadu0075]

@@501Mobius Except that Hammurabi's alliance with Elam and Larsa are well attested as are his campaigns in to the Levant. Furthermore, Hammurabi being mentioned in Genesis is not the only thing that connects Abraham to the time period. The finds at Mari open up a new wealth of knowledge concerning the ANE during the Late Middle Bronze Age, the period of Hammurabi. Abraham acts just like a Amoritic nomad of the period. We actually find names similar to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Benjamin and others names connected to the patriarchs at Mari. These are names that are not common among Semites in the 13th century onwards. Furthermore, we find other pieces of culture exhibited by Abraham that would be defunct only a few centuries later. One of them include the bizarre covenant ritual between Yahweh and Abraham where animals are hacked to pieces and the parties walk between them. This ritual dates to the Late Middle Bronze Age. A person writing in the 13th century or 9th century or 5th century would have no idea about this practice. But this was some thing that occurred during the time of Hammurabi.

[@501Mobius]

@@kwameadu0075 The math works against this scenario. Hammurabi was 1765-1722 BC (+/-5 years). In the 27th year of Hammurabi allies with Larsa to stop Elam. Thus after 1738 (+/-5 years) not allied.
In relation to Abraham sojourn years the battle would be somewhere from year 2 to year 10 (birth of Ishmael).
Thus 428-420 years until the Exodus.
Adding that to the 1765-1738 range you get the Exodus in the range 1345/1337 BC - 1318/1310 BC (+/- 5years).

[@billcovington5836]

Moses would’ve been born 1526. He would’ve left for Midian in 1486. The exodus would’ve occurred in 1446. The conquering of the promised land would’ve been 1406. Solomon’s Temple (first Kings 6:1), would be 966 BC. the Assyrian eponym gives us the date of an eclipse, June 15, 763 BC.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Everything up to the building of Solomon's Temple lacks warrant.

[@billcovington5836]

@@ancientegyptandthebible if you’ll get a copy of the Assyrian eponym it all makes sense to you

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@billcovington5836 Do you even know what the Assyrian eponym list is? You are clearly confused. The Assyrian eponym list will tell you nothing about the dates of Moses.

[@billcovington5836]

@@ancientegyptandthebible yes it does because it gives you the date of an eclipse June 15 763 BC you can check that with NASA

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@billcovington5836 Nobody contests that. Everyone is fine with the Temple being built in 966/967 BC. But how does that prove the case for Moses since you have misread 1 Kings 6:1?