Merneptah as The Pharaoh who destroyed Gezer

Once again I’m shifting my Revised Chronology views.

One argument against Shoshenq as Shishak we don't make enough is how Shoshenq was the first of his dynasty and so it makes the Pharaoh who destroyed Gezer and married a Princess of his Royal House to Solomon a Pharaoh of the dying and never really that militarily strong to begin with 21st Dynasty.  There simply is no archeological evidence for any 21st Dynasty Pharoah doing anything in Canaan especially not militarily, the last Pharaoh attested in the region until Shoshenq is Rameses VI of the 20th Dynasty.  And that Dynasty lasted over a century (in conventional chronology anyway) while 44-45 years separated Shishak's campaign agaisnt Rehoboam from the beginning of the reign of Solomon.

Another argument is how even in conventional chronology Shoshenq is actually too late. See the conventional dates for Shosenq are based on identifying him with Shishak and thus place him when mainstream Bible Scholars place the end of Solomon's reign.  When the 22nd Dynasty ended is pretty undisputed, we’re at the dawn of classical antiquity when all that goes down, plenty of solid verifiable synchronizations.  And proponents of various Revised Chronologies have pointed out that conventional chronologists are really stretching the dates for the 22nd dynasty even to have it start contemporary with those late mainstream dates for Solomon and Rehoboam.  It really should probably begin about the same time as the 23rd Dynasty, the other Libyan dynasty who ruled Upper Egypt, I think both were born of the same Libyan take over.

I’ve always placed Solomon decades sooner as a long time proponent of Bishop James Ussher for the Kingdom period, but how much I agree with Ussher has lessened over the years.  And now that I’ve advocated for an approach to the historical books of the Kingdom Period that allows me to consider their stated reign lengths may not even have to be accurate at face value, I’ve come to consider that Josephus’s dates for Solomon may be correct since he had access to now lost Temple records.

In Wars of The Jews Book 6 near the end of Chapter 4 he says that the destruction of The Temple in 70 AD was 1130 years besides 7 months and 15 days from when Solomon first laid its foundations, that gives us 1061 BC or 1062 BC depending on how the 7 months affects things.  In Antiquities of The Jews Josephus sought to correct mistakes he’d made in Wars, but in 20.10.2 he pretty much confirms that previous date for The Temple by saying it was 466 years 6 months and 10 days from the finishing of The Temple till it’s first destruction in 588-586 BC giving us 1054 or 1055 BC.  Back to Wars Josephus says it was 477 years and 6 months after King David that the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem happened.  Since David’s death was about 11 years before the full consecration of The Temple that lines up well with David dying and Solomon’s reign beginning in 1065 BC.  Solomon reigned for 40 years and Shishak’s raid was in the 5th year of Rehoboam according to 1 Kings 14:25 and 2nd Chronicles 12:5 giving us 1021 or 1020 BC.  But Shishak was already reigning in Egypt while Solomon was alive to harbor Jeroboam so was on the throne by 1025 BC. [Update: the possibly that Solomon reigned longer then conventionally assumed is one I'm also considering now, in a way that could potentially make the start of Rehoboam's reign 20 years later in 1005 BC and Shishak's invasion in 1001 BC.]

These same Josephus dates give us an Exodus in 1673 BC.

So I’m proposing a revised chronology today that’s really a comparatively slight revision.

In Judges 1:29 the city of Gezer is among the cities the Israelites weren’t originally able to drive the Canaanites out of. Gezer was subdued by the Pharaoh whose daughter Solomon married in 1 Kings 9:15-17, he gave it to Solomon who then rebuilt it as an Israelite city.  Gezer is clearly still a Canaanite city in the Amarna period, so placing Amarna later then Solomon doesn't work.

That argument agaisnt Velikovsky's chronology has been stressed by David Rohl and supporters of his New Chronology, and my last posts on this blog that were actually about Revised Chronology were me supporting Rohl on at least the Amarna Period.  But that timeline for David and Saul combined with his viewing Rameses II during one of his earliest campaigns as Shishak would have to make the Pharaoh who took Gezer either Horemheb, Rameses I or Seti I.  But there are no surviving references to any of those three or Rameses II himself taking Gezer.

Instead in all of Egyptian History the most well known and celebrated destruction of Gezer by an Egyptian Ruler was Merneptah the son and successor of Rameses II on the Stele named after him.  But this Stele isn’t the only reference, we know from the Amada Temple that Merneptah destroyed Gezer himself, he’s not merely referring to someone else destroying the cities in the region as Velikovsky’s 19th Dynasty theory had to interpret it.  

However the Merneptah Stele is also known as the “Israel Stele'' because of a line commonly read as saying “Israel is laid waste and his seed is not”.  If Israel was actually Merneptah’s ally and at the height of her prosperity under Solomon then how does this make sense?  Well I believe that reading is wrong and agree with those who argue “Israel” should read “Jezreel” instead.

We are no longer dependent on this stele for archaeological verification that Israel even existed, and one thing those other references seem to show to me is that Israel was not a name the Israelites were called by outsiders, especially not a hostile one bragging about claiming to have destroyed them.  Like how the Japanese don't generally call themselves that.  I think often outsiders would have just called them the same names they called the Canaanites because they weren't interested in the region's ethnic make up changing.  Besides that Egyptian and Assyrian records more often then not used the names of capital cities or more localized regions, tribes and clans.

The only other inscription commonly read as being a foreign King using the name Israel is Shalmaneser’s reference to King Ahab, but that too has been alternatively interpreted as reading Jezreel, and since that city was Ahab's capital and he didn’t actually rule all of Israel, that definitely makes more sense.  Both these sources were not using Alphabet based written languages like Hebrew, Jezreel absolutely would be represented in characters that could easily be confused with how the same system would say Israel.

Now Jezreel in The Bible is the name of both a City and a Valley by the City, but I believe the City was pretty much founded by the House of Omri, perhaps Ahab himself, and that any reference chronologically before then is referring to the Valley.  And that agrees with the Merneptah Stele which doesn’t call Jezreel a city as it did Gezer and Ashkelon in the preceding lines.  Jezreel in this Stele could be referring to basically the same region that is the subject of 1 Kings 4:12, the cities linked to Jezreel there were also ones the Canaanites weren’t driven out of back in Judges 1:27.  

That said there could have been some actual Israelites allied with the Canaanites who Merneptah fought this campaign agaisnt, perhaps some northerners were still resistant to unifying under the House of David, the "Sea Peoples" I'm still working on my theory for.

However the popular Israel reading of the Merneptah Stele is also the main argument against the Shasu of Yhw being Israelites.  So I do principally believe those of Jezreel Merneptah defeated were Canaanites.

The Shasu as Israelites I'm becoming very convinced of. (Of course other Abrahamic people like Edom are also included.) They are depicted as having invaded and taken over the Mountains of Canaan while the older populations survived more in the low lands.  That perfectly fits the picture painted by passages like Judges 1:19.  

Back in 1 Kings 9:15-17 the taking of Gezer by Pharaoh is to add context to Solomon doing construction projects there but also other places like Megiddo, a city in the above verse whose name is also applied to the valley of Jezreel.  I don’t think this Pharaoh destroyed any of those cities in a similar way, but the same campaign may have also weakened Canaanite presence in and around the Valley of Jezreel, the language could be of a specific obscure Canaanite clan tied to the valley.

Every daughter of a Pharaoh was given the title “King’s Daughter” which she kind of held for life.  So the “Daughter of Pharaoh” Solomon married may not actually be the Daughter of the Pharaoh at the time but of a previous one.  I mention this since Rameses II had a lot of spare daughters we know little about, this excess of royal daughters could be exactly why Merneptah was more willing to marry one off to a foreign King then the prior 18th Dynasty Pharaohs had been.  But given how old Merneptah was when he became Pharaoh, a Granddaughter or even Great Granddaughter is also possible.

That leads me to discussing the mysterious figure of Irsu.  Hans Goedicke advocated a reading of the Papyrus Harris I where Irsu is not some usurper ruling Egypt but a “rebel” in the land of Canaan who the later 19th Dynasty had been in the opinion of this 20th Dynasty propagandist too soft on and that Twosret had even allied herself with, and then Setnakhte the first Pharaoh of the 20th Dynasty finally stopped tolerating this “rebellion”.

Basically I’m suggesting that Solomon was Irsu.  Irsu is an Egyptian designation that means “He who made himself”. I could see enemies of Solomon choosing to describe him that way.  Another way Irsu has been transliterated is Yarsu, that really makes me consider the possibility that in addition to what it means in Egyptian it’s also a play on the name of Jerusalem.  There is also no actual reference to Tworset dying at the end of her reign, she could have just left.

Timeline wise it still wouldn’t be Setnakhte who was Shishak but Rameses III, that’s who’s reigning 44 years after Merneptah no matter when in Merneptah’s reign you start counting.  Now as I’ve pointed out before that many miss, Shishak didn’t actually fight any battle with Rehoboam at all, Rehoboam following the advice of a Prophet willingly offered tribute.  The language making it sound like “everything” in The Temple was taken by Shishak is hyperbole, none of the major Temple Sacred Relics were taken, and I don’t expect Ramses III would have even considered the incident all that notable.

Rameses III also fought land battles in his wars with the Sea Peoples and that’s what probably brought him to the land of Israel.  The Tjekker are linked in the Story of Wenamun to Dor, another city Judges 1:27 tells us was Canaanite.  The Teresh I think could be Tarshish/Tarsus because they had close relations with both Tyre and Solomon.  I finally have a view on Egyptology that doesn’t have me rejecting the Peleset=Philistines identification, but conventionally it’s said they weren’t in the Gaza region till after Rameses III which is obviously not the case here.  And despite how we use the term these Egyptians texts don’t call the Tjekker or Peleset Sea Peoples.

It’s also plausible from the reading of the Papyrus that Irsu himself wasn’t still in charge when Seknakhte put down the “rebellion” and so his pacifying Rehoboam is The Bible’s account of that same event.

Once again I consider it futile to look for the name of Shishak among any names any Pharaohs actually used, it’s a Hebrew name with a Hebrew etymology and probably serves a similar function to Jeremiah calling Babylon Sheshach.  Both Kings and Chronicles are commonly believed to enter their final written down forms around Jeremiah’s time or later.  The same method by which Sheshach is B-B-L, Shishak would be B-B-D but I don’t actually think that’s the answer either.  My point is it’s some type of poetic nickname.  No one thinks Pharaoh is a personal name (except for the Mizriam isn't Kemet at all theory which I once flirted with but have abandoned), but the fact is it's largely because of The Bible that we use Pharaoh as a word for every Egyptian Monarch.  When dealing with the texts of Kings and Chronicles, Pharaoh is in fact never used of Shishak, rather when we compare the references Shishak is being used in place of Pharaoh.  The problem with reading Pharaoh as an Egyptian synonym for King is that the word King is also used when Pharaoh is, it's Pharaoh King of Egypt and Shishak King of Egypt.  It might be that in this period Pharaoh is used of the 19th Dynasty while Shishak is used of the 20th.

There is almost certainly overlap between the reigns of Asa and Rameses III given how long they were.  Zerah The Cushite was probably a chieftain of one of the Cushite tribes of Arabia and so I don’t feel the need to look for him in Egyptian records at all. The reference to Asa having dealt with invasions by Cushites and Lubims is a long after the fact statement that I don’t think actually means those two attacks were the same, the Lubim incident is just not otherwise in Scripture.  The Lubim in Egyptian history were active and working with the Sea Peoples again in the time of Rameses III.

This theory has been suggested before by a Peter James, and one objection to Solomon as Irsu was that Irsu is called a Hurrian.  But some have argued that the family of Abraham were Hurrians originally, and maybe even as late as the time of Solomon many still used a Hurrian Language alongside the Language of Canaan.

I've settled on viewing Rameses III as Shishak but I still think there was more then the conventional 30 years between Merneptah Year 5 and Rameses III's year 8 and that that involved a longer reign for Twosret.

A lot of people don't understand how complex the Biblical picture of the Judges period is which is why so many people have trouble buying that the Amarna Letters are any period after Joshua.  All the Authors of those letters are Pagan Canaanites and that's what I'd expect from The Biblical depiction.  The major players are all among cities Judges 1 and other passages tell us were still Canaanite at least till the time of David (unless they are arguably outside the range of what was allotted to Israel entirely) Gezer, Megiddo, Jerusalem, Sidon and her daughter Tyre.  And it could be more cities were Canaanite then just ones The Bible specified, Pella in the Trans-Jordan does not seem to be directly mentioned in Scripture at all, but most of the Roman era Decapolis cities were ones that had stayed Canaanite.

The Israelites entered Canaan as primarily a pastoral nomadic people, for all of the Judges Period a good percentage of them, maybe even the majority, probably didn't even live in cities but preferred the rural life.  Judges 1 also clarifies how The Israelites initially mainly took over power in the most mountainous regions while the Canaanites held out in the plain. 

But the major cities we know were Israelite cities during this period do not have Kings or Mayors who wrote letters to Pharaoh at Amarna.  Hebron, Lachish, Bethlehem, Kirathjearim and Bethgader in Judah, Gibea in Benjamin, Bethel and Hai, Jericho, Shiloh, Shechem and Tirzah in the House of Joseph's allotment. Japhia and the other Bethlehem in Zebulun, Kedesh-Naphtali and so on.  Some of these cities are mentioned in the letters, some Canaanite Kings claimed sovereignty over them, but Kings do love to claim to be King of more then what they actually were.

Labaya is the enigma, he's not really linked to a specific city the way the others are, he's been called the King of Shechem by modern scholars but that's actually a city he claims is in his domain and is not depicted as his capital at all.  David Rohl argues for him being Saul and other revised chronologies have tried almsot every major Northern Kingdom monarch.  But again Gezer shows that the post Solomon period can be ruled out for Amarna.  And I really don't see Saul writing these kinds of letters to Pharaoh, even during his darker final years.

This timeline most likely makes Labaya contemporary with Eli and the rise of Samuel. In which context Labaya as a leader of the Philistines oppressing Israel could work.  Though a more minimalist interpretation of the Judges time period could make Labaya an Ammonite oppressor which would better fit his son being in the Trans-Jordan.

But he could just be a King of one of the Judges 1 Canaanite cities who's Amarna era King isn't specifically known, probably one of the Jezreel Valley ones disputed between Issachar and Manasseh in Joshua 17:11 and Judges 1:27.  Taanach is seemingly missing from the Amarna records, and it's far enough south to be in the West Bank on a modern Map of Israel, since Labaya's fall was at the hands of nearby Gina/Jenin it fits well.  The name of Labaya however is believed to come from a word for Lion, and a famous Stele at Bethshean depicts a Lion and Lioness.  Another Semitic word for Lion is Gur often translated "whelp" as in a baby lion, and Gur is also a place name connected to Ibleam in 1 Kings 9:27.  Dor is also missing from the Amarna records, Labaya could have ruled an alliance of everyone in those verses but Megiddo.

Back to the Sea Peoples subject, the Peleset being the Philistines and Tjekker the Canaanites of Dor I haven't changed my mind on, but they and the Lukka are NOT actually called Sea Peoples in the original Egyptian inscriptions.  [Update 2026: I have recently come to consider that the Lukka could be the Lecah (pronounced lew-kah) clan descended form Shelah son of Judah in 1 Chronicles 4:21.]

Based on Genesis 10 I think the term Philistim/Philistines was originally a term for Mizraimite colonists in Canaan and/or their puppets, though they could also have some Libyans like the Meshwesh and Tehenu, I believe Casluhim equates to what the Greeks and Romans would later call Cyrenaica and that the Lubim are a contracted form of Lehabim.  Gaza has been described as Egypt's capital in the region during the New Kingdom.  The Peleset name doesn't show up in Egyptian records till Ramses III because that's when these colonists sought independence.  And so the Philistine oppressors of the eras of Jephthah, Samson, Eli, Samuel, Saul and David are really just the proxies of the 18th and early 19th Dynasty Egyptian Empire.  And/or in addition to all that the Philistines could also be one of the tribes that made up the Hyksos.

But I now know that in the Merneptah records it's confirmed that the Ekwesh, Teresh, Shekelesh and Sherden were all Circumcised peoples, so that most likely rules out the Teresh being the Tarshish of Japheth and thus Tarsus.  However 1st Chronicles mentioned a Tarshish of Benjamin, but with only one "sh" the Teresh could perhaps more likely be Tirzah a name linked to Western Manasseh.

The Danuans mentioned in the Amarna letters are all in letters about affairs in Lebanon, so that fits them being Dan after their migration recorded in Judges 18 to an area north of Apheca and expanding from there.  They hadn't taken over Gebel/Byblos yet but I think they will by the time of Solomon.  From there they colonized the "islands" that Rameses III associated his Denyen with.

The Sherden I once again think are the Sardite clan of Zebulun descended from Sered of Genesis 46:14 and Numbers 26:26, and perhaps also connected to the place named Sarid in Joshua 19:10-12.  The Shekelesh has been suggested  to be Issachar (Egyptian like Japanese uses often confuses the L and R sounds).  The Weshesh has been argued by some scholars to be Asher.  I feel like the name of Ekwesh could be explained as tied to Akko, they are the Asherites who felt Akko belonged to them and kept trying to take it.  The Weslesh and Ekwesh never appear together so them being different designations for the same people is plausible.

I kind of want to explain all the Circumcised Sea Peoples as clans of either Dan, Asher or Zebulun, they are the ones with Biblical passages hinting at them becoming "Sea Peoples", either in their Blessings in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 or the Song of Deborah.  But Western Manasseh did have access to the coast, from how the allotments are usually mapped way more so then Zebulun.  Meanwhile Issachar is linked to Zebulun in those blessings.

So I've been looking into the Alashiya (a people often identified with Elishah of Genesis 10 and Ezekiel 27), and the old scholarly discussions on if they were on Cyprus or on the mainland in Syria or Cilicia, and I'm so annoyed that everyone felt it has to be either/or.  I think their capital was probably Enkomi which was close to where Salamis was in New Testament times, but I think they probably had colonies or at least trading ports on the mainland coasts, and my hunch is one was around where Antioch on the Orontes would later be founded.

I think references to "The Isles" in The Hebrew Bible and other ancient Semitic texts prior to Alexander The Great are chiefly to the Greek world, it contained a lot of Islands, the Peloponnese was sometimes called an island even though it's technically not.  I think to the ancient Near East who didn't know much about the world further west then that, the Greek world including Magna Grecia was probably thought of as being the Isles of the West.

In The Bible this phrase first appears in Genesis 10:5 where the portion of either Japheth as a whole or just Javan from verse 4 is called "The Isles of the Nations".  Next is Esther 10:1, since Ahasuerus is Xerxes that being a reference to his invading Greece fits.  Psalm 72:10 says "the Kings of Tarshish and of the isles", Isaiah 60:9 associates the term with Tarshish and Isaiah 66:19 again sociates them with Javan.  Jeremiah 2:10 refers to the Isles of Kittim, and then 25:22 refers to the Isles that Tyre and Sidon trade with which Ezekiel 27 repeatedly identify with Javan and his sons.

So likewise I think "The Isles" that are associated with the Denyen by Rameses III are the Greek world and thus they are the Danaoi/Danaans of Homer.  If they are also a colony of The Tribe of Dan I don't think that means Dan made any significant permanent impact on the Hellene Gene Pool.  The Danaans/Acheans/Argrives of Homer chiefly ruled the Peloponnese where I don't think they ever full replaced the prior population and their kingdoms were later taken over by the Dorians.  The "Acheans" of Classical Antiquity are just Dorians who appropriated that name.  The Dorians never fully subjugated Arcadia, but I don't think the Danaans did either.  

Antediluvian Sumerian Kings List

I have a hypothesis about the Antediluvian Sumerian Kings List.

Quoting that Wikipedia page.

The antediluvian reigns were measured in Sumerian numerical units known as sars (units of 3,600), ners (units of 600), and sosses (units of 60).

Since I believe before the Flood and maybe still awhile after the lunar and solar cycles were perfectly in sync with 30 day months and 360 day years of exactly 12 months.  I speculated, what if the "units" meant there are days rather then years with sars being decades, sosses 2 months each and ners periods of 20 months?

I then calculated the reigns of the 8 antediluvian kings to be 670 years total.  Ending that period with The Flood puts it's start one year before the rapture of Enoch which was 669 years before The Flood.

I argued in an earlier post on this blog that the Pre-Flood Eridu was the city founded in Genesis 4, that it was actually founded by Enoch Ben-Cain and named after Irad.  I don't think this event is when it was founded though, I think it existed for awhile.  Still since I think Enoch Ben-Cain was born sometime later then Seth, he could have easily lived to 79 years after the rapture of Enoch.

With the Creation and Flood dates I have argued for.  That would be 3419 BC (986 AM) for the beginning of Alulim's reign as king of Eridu.  Followed by 3418 BC for the rapture of Enoch.

Alulim reigned 80 years from 986-1066 AM
Alangar reigned 100 years from 1066-1166 AM
180 total of Eridu(Irad) as the capital

En-men-lu-ana reigned 120 years from 1166-1286 AM
En-men-gal-ana reigned 80 years from 1286-1366 AM
Dumuzid The Shepherd(Tammuz) reigned 100 years from 1366-1466 AM
300 years total of Bad-tibira as the capital

En-sipad-zid-ana reigned 80 years from 1466-1546 AM from Larag

En-men-dur-ana reigned 58 years and 4 months from 1546-1604/5 AM from Zimbir

Ubara-Tutu reigned 51 years and 8 months from 1604/5-1656 AM from Shuruppag

I think Eridu alone might be about the same location as the post Flood cite affiliated with it.  My hunch is from there each new capital went further east.  But that is purely speculative.

Biblical Chronology

Someone new has entered the pass-time of interpreting Biblical Chronology, a project called The Tetra-Scroll.

My first annoyance is that like many others she has made the mistake of using the standard Secular date for Solomon as her starting point, which has his reign begin in 970 BC, and The Temple construction starting in 966 BC, and his death about 930 BC.  And thus the Exodus in 1446 BC.

The starting point should be the Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar when Solomon's Temple was destroyed.  Which there is a two year discrepancy for, 588-586 BC.  Though I have seen one reference to 584 BC.  It was definitely in the 580s.

Ezekiel 4:4-6 tells us that there would be 390 years from the division of the Kingdom to the fall of Jerusalem.  That puts the division of the Kingdom in the 970s BC.  The division happens soon after Solomon died.  Many have counted all the reigns of the Kings of Judah to match that, with disagreement on the details but basically they match that.  Here is one website doing so without mentioning Ezekiel.

The problem was there are apparent inconsistencies between the Biblical Chronology and the conclusions historians have drawn from Assyrian Chronology.  And so secular historians chose to believe Assyria over The Bible, and then many believers sought to force The Bible to match the presumed Assyrian Chronology.  But there have been good arguments against using Assyrian chronology this way at Answers In Genesis and Creation Wiki, though I don't always agree with them exactly, I made my own post that deals with Ahab and Jehu.

Bishop James Ussher's Chronology in Annals of The World I think made mistakes, but I believe he got the Kingdom Period right, from Saul down to Zedekiah.  Ussher's Chronology is summarized here.  My only variation from Ussher on the Kingdom period would be I'd have Solomon 2 or 3 years younger when he becomes King because I believe Solomon was the youngest of Bathsheba's sons.  So Ussher had him 18 I have him as 15 or 16.  That doesn't effect the other dates at all however.

So I place the beginning of Solomon's reign about 1015 BC.  And the completion of The Temple in 1004 BC.  With 1011 or 1012 BC as when The Temple construction was started.

Some will also try to use the way Josephus synchronized Solomon with a Tyrian historian in Against Apion to support a younger date for Solomon.  Josephus goal in that part of that book was to show the Israelite nation had antiquity from gentile histories, he wanted to show how even the youngest possible interpretation of the evidence makes Israel older then Classical Greece.  If he was aware that date for Hiram's reign conflicted with his other information he may not have even concerned himself with it.  Some think the copies he had of those Tyrian historians may have already been corrupted from the originals, today we don't have them independent of Josephus at all unfortunately.

In Wars of The Jews, after The Temple is destroyed in Book 6 at the end of chapter 4 Josephus says it had been since it's first foundation was laid by Solomon 1130 years besides 7 months and 15 days.  Counting back from 70 AD that gives us 1061 BC, which is older then Ussher's date, (during his time frame for the reign of Saul).  If someone can find a way to interpret the chronology of the Kingdom period consistent with that I'd be interested, but for now I still favor Ussher's.

Josephus also said in Wars 6.10 it was 477 years and 6 months from David's taking Jerusalem till it was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.  (Counting from a 588 BC date that is 1065 BC and 2 years later for the more popular 586 BC date) And that there was 1179 years from David till the destruction in 70 AD.  That's 1110 BC.  Not sure how those 3 dates he gave can be reconciled with each other much less The Bible.

When discussing the High Priesthood in Antiquities 20.10.2 he says there was 466 years and 6 months and 10 days form the dedication of Solomon's Temple till it was destroyed in 588-6 BC.  That gives us about 1054 BC for the completion of the Temple which is consistent with his date for when it began.  Which sounds like it makes 1065 BC his date for David's death and Solomon becoming King.  And 1110 BC his date for David being given Ziklag.  In Antiquities he corrects many mistakes he made in Wars.  These dates would add exactly 50 years to Ussher's for David and Solomon.

One thing that I feel confirms Ussher's date for the reigns of David and Solomon (about 1055-975 BC), is that Diodorus list of Thalasocracies (preserved by Eusebius) has the Pelasgians as the dominant sea power at about exactly that time (1057-972 BC).  And I've argued elsewhere how Pelesgians could come from Pelegians or descendants of Peleg, and thus be a term some Greeks might have called the Hebrews.  Also about 972 or 971 BC was when Ussher dated Shishak's sacking of Jerusalem in the early reign of Rehoboam.

Ussher's date for the Exodus was 1492 BC,  1 Kings 6:1 says there were 480 years from the Exodus to when The Temple was started.  Ussher and many others chose to just assume that one verse without a second witness settles the issue.

Problem is Acts 13 says there was 40 years in the Wilderness, 450 years of Judges, 40 years for Saul and 40 years for David.  That doesn't agree with only 480 years total, but when you count the time periods in Judges and 1 Samuel it agrees with 450 years from the first time Israel was subjugated to the start of Saul's reign.

Many have argued that the 480 year reference intentionally didn't count the foreign oppressions or the brief reign of Abimelech.  Which means you can add 114 years to the 480 to get 594 and then everything fits nicely.  That would move Ussher's Exodus date to 1606 BC, the end of the wandering in the Wilderness to 1566, the end of Joshua's 7 years conquest to 1559, and the death of Joshua in 1557 BC.

Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews 8.3.1 gave 592 years for this period.  Which suggests he considered the foreign oppressions to be excluded from the 480 but not Abimelech's 2 years.  He also said in 20.10.1 there were 612 years from Aaron till Solomon' Temple was dedicated.  Again Josephus numbers have issues, but he clearly recognized the Judges period was at least 450 years independent of trying to reconcile with Acts 13.

The Tetra-Scroll has the 430 years that ended with the Exodus begin when Abraham was 70.  This is based on her own convoluted explanation for two references being 430 years (Exodus 12:40 and Galatians 3:17) and another in Genesis 15 saying 400 years being a difference of 30 years before Issac was born.

But that doesn't work, nothing in The Bible is actually dated to when Abraham was 70, Genesis 12 begins with Abraham being 75 and that is where the 430 years references start.  Genesis 15 could just be saying about 400 years and the exact number we have to get elsewhere.

That is if you agree that the 430 years should begin with Abraham and not with Joseph.  As Ussher, the Tetra-Scroll and Rob Skiba all agree it should.  But I haven't made up my mind on that entirely yet.

The Prophecy being given to Abraham by no means proves it starts with him.  Galatians 3:17 is the main reason I have sometimes leaned towards 430 years from God making his promise to Abraham (which was when Abraham was 75, not 70) until the Torah was given.

The context of Galatians 3 earlier talked a great deal about Abraham.  But Promises were given more then once, so it could be Paul meant The Law was 430 years after the last Promise God gave the Patriarchs.  Which could arguably refer to the Death of either Jacob of Joseph.   Also what Paul meant could have been at least 430 years as he no doubt knew Exodus 12:40.

The way the 430 years is expressed in Exodus 12:40 makes it sound like it was entirely in Egypt.   Jacob died in 2315 AM.  Joseph died in 2369 AM.  According to Ussher, who's Biblical AM dates I consider correct up to the Death of Levi in 2385 AM.  The Death of Joseph is when the narrative of Genesis ends.  It could be the enslavement happened 30 years after Joseph died, which would make a lot of things fit.

I used to agree with Rob Skiba that they were not necessarily slaves for the entire 400 years, the disagreement is only if the 430 or 400 years should begin when either Joseph or the family as a whole entered Egypt rather then Abraham.  But the wording of Genesis 15 as I've studied it in more then just the KJV, says they will be in the nation that will afflict them for 400 years.

One mistake Skiba makes is he thinks the Pharaoh who "did not remember Joseph" literally lived so long later after that Joseph was forgotten.  If that's the case that actually supports a longer sojourn in Egypt model.

That statement could be just an expression meaning he didn't regard Joseph, he was willingly ignorant of what Joseph accomplished.  There is no guarantee that Pharaoh was born after Joseph died, and no reason he couldn't have been the very next new Pharaoh to be crowned after Joseph died.

Stephen in Acts further says that the Israelites suffered in Egypt for 400 years.  The Enslavement can't happen till after Joseph dies because it requires a New Pharaoh.  Perhaps it was 30 years after Joseph died.

Joseph's brothers entered Egypt over 200 years after God called Abraham, in the second year of the 7 year famine.  Joseph lived some time past that point and Moses was born 80 years before the Exodus.  So there would not be that many generations from Joseph to Moses.  If you start the 430 years with Abraham.  Yet the Hebrews had reproduced into a very large population.

Some might argue the genealogies don't give enough generations to fit my longer interpretation of the the Sojourn and Judges periods.  It can be demonstrated from The Bible repeatedly that Hebrew genealogies are willing to skip generations.  The Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies are exceptions because they mention dates, they're chrono-genealogies.  Matthew 1's genealogy skipped at least a few names the Old Testament records.  So I think there were more then two generations between Levi and Moses (certainly more then one mater-lineally).

There being more then only 10 generations from Pharez to David may hurt the way Chuck Missler likes to tie Genesis 38 to Deuteronomy 23:1-2's law about bastard lines not entering the assembly before the 10th generation as a prophecy of David.  But it may also be The Holy Spirit only recorded 10 generations to make it spiritually fit that even if it didn't literally.  The family of Boaz and Naomi certainly doesn't seem like one that didn't have full citizenship due to descending from bastards, they were actually pretty prominent locally.

Genesis 11:36 days Terah was 70 when he began having children.  Abraham is listed first because he's the most important to this chronicler, like Shem being listed first usually even though Genesis 10 tells us Japheth was the oldest and Shem the youngest.

The Chapter divisions were not in the original text, Genesis 11 ends with telling us Terah died then 12:1 God calls Abraham.  Acts 7:14 clarified Abraham left Haran when Terah died, which Genesis 12 makes clear was when Abraham was 75.  Since one of Abraham's brothers already had a full grown son at this time, it's not at all absurd to conclude Abraham was born 60 years after the firstborn.

The so called Book of Jasher supports a 1948 AM birth-date for Abraham because it's author wanted to have Abraham and Noah meet (it's basically Medieval Jewish Fan Fiction), and Noah died between 1948 and 2008 AM.  But since Noah was the first generation born after Adam died, Abraham being born after Noah died I feel fits better thematically.

So, Abraham was born in 2008 AM/352 AF and called in 2083 AM/427 AF.  Isaac was born 2108 AM/452 AF and Abraham died in 2183 AM/527 AF.

Ussher's Creation date I currently think was certainly 114 years off.  That gives us a Creation date of 4118 BC and the Flood in 2462 BC.  But I still haven't made up my mind exactly on chronology.

Also I do not believe The Tower of Babel incident happened the year Peleg was born, the Hebrew used a different word for divided there then when describing Babel.  I think it refereed to geographical divisions happening from the sea levels rising.  Babel would have happened sooner.  Peleg's Birth in the above model would be 2361 BC.

The author of the Tetra-Scroll eschatologically believes in the Seven Millenniums theory which I do not.  So she makes a big deal out of 6000 years from Creation being in her estimation 2107 AD and 7000 years being 3107.  My calculation above would give the 6000 years date as being 1883.

That is all assuming the 430 years begins with the call of Abraham.  No matter what I date 430 years before The Exodus to 2036 BC.

A longer Soujorn model would require a 4333 BC creation date at least, but if my hunch developed above of possibly beginning the 430 years with the Death of Joseph is correct, that would be a Creation date of 4405 BC and 2749 BC for The Flood and 2648 for the birth of Peleg.  That would place the year 6000 in 1596 AD.

I have trouble with using a Flood date as young as Ussher's (2348 BC) much less younger based on the conclusions I've come to studying Ancient History.

I don't mean Egypt (which conventional Chronology says started around 3100 BC) I know from the revised Chronology discussed on this blog Egypt is probably much younger.  And that Ussher's 2188 BC date for Egypt's founding is plausible.  Though I'd make it a little older then that.

China is not effected by revising Egyptian Chronology.  The dates for China's earliest Emperors are older even then the oldest Flood date proposed above.  The Earliest Chinese Emperors are highly mythologized, but I think their dates are accurate at least as early as Shun.

The date for the beginning of Fuxi's reign is right when Shem would have been born with a 2749 Flood date, 2852 BC.  Fuxi is the brother of Nuwa, a female Chinese deity with a name oddly similar to Noah, who is linked to China's Flood legend.  I feel it's possible Noah could have been married to his Sister, so they could be corrupted Pagan memorizes of Noah and his Wife.  The Yan Emperor is often identified with Shennong, he could be based on Shem.

2333 BC is the traditional date of the founding of the Korean kingdom of Gojoseon by Dangun.

But more directly relevant I expressed on this Blog before why I do feel The Sumerian Kings List isn't changed by Revised Chronology.  Though whether I favor the Short Chronology or Middle Chronology remains to be seen.  It's the Short Chronology that places the 2234 BC date for the founding of Babylon during the reign of Sargon of Akkad which fits the theories of my earlier Babel Post.  So I'll favor that for now.

That puts the Death of Gilgamesh at possibly 2623 BC but no later then 2503 BC.  Two Kings were between him and Enmerkar who I view as Nimrod.  Noah died 2006 AM which in this Creation model would be 2399 BC.  So Gilgamesh could have met him.

Deciding to randomly round down the exaggerated reigns of Enmerkar to 42, Lugalbanda 12, Dmuzid 10 and Gilgamesh to 12.  Gives them 76 years total.  Which could put the beginning of Nimrod's reign in 2699 BC.  Which in China happens to be the same year the Yellow Emperor began his reign.  I'm not gonna speculate they're the same person, but it's an interesting coincidence.  Sima-Qian considered him possibly the earliest historical Emperor.

The end of the reign of queen Kug-Bau/Kubaba of Kish would be 2409 BC.  The reign of Enshagkushana who she was contemporary with would be 2483-2423 BC using the calculation that has Gilgamessh die in 2623 BC.

Ur-Zababa of Kish's reign would have been from 2383-2377.  Sargon of Akkad was supposed to have been his Cup bearer at some point.  Which would make Sargon over 100 years old when he became King in about 2270 BC, and then reigned 56 years after that.  Genesis tells us that is possible.

The Death of Terah and Abraham leaving Haran would have been in 2322 BC.  During the reign of Ishme-Shamash of Kish, and possibly Lugal-Kinshe-dudu or Lugal-ure of Uruk.  A post I already linked to shows why I do NOT believe Abraham's Ur was the Sumerian Ur as popularly thought.

Chedolaomer was probably a King of the Awan dynasty who reigned before the Akadian period.  And Amraphel was probably an alternate name for either the contemporary ruler of Kish or Uruk.

I think it's possible the Babel project happened about a Jubilee (49 years) after The Flood around 2700 BC.  Giving Nimrod/Enmerkar about a year to establish himself via his Hunting prowess as a leading figure in Uruk, to then consolidate his power and build an Emperor over the next 42 years.

If you're thinking  "that isn't enough time to produce enough people" you're wrong.  Babel was at the time the dispersion happened probably not a Metropolis by modern standards, I'd be shocked if it had a whole 500 people.  I've done math that tells me you could easily get over 120 people who would be adults by modern standards, and did some rounding down to be safe.

So I feel the 4405 BC Creation date works.  Making now, October of 2015 AD the year 6419 AM.

Update December 8 2015:  I've been rethinking the material from Ezekiel 4:4-6 where the 390 years comes from.  It also refers to 40 years for Judah specifically.  40 years before the finale deportation in 584 BC was 624 BC when Josiah's special Second Passover occurred that brought many of the North to Judah.  It could be that's the end of the Iniquity of the House of Israel followed by 40 remaining years for Judah.  I'm unsure on this though because it would mean finding room for another 40 years in the chronology of the divided kingdom.

But if I could push my Creation and Flood dates down another 40 years to 4445 BC and 2789 BC Flood date.  That gives 89 rather then 49 years between the Flood and when I've calculated the reign of Enmerkar to begin.  Plenty of time for the Tower of Babel to have possibly happened 70-75 years after The Flood.

Also about 635-634 BC was when Josiah began to go after God.  So that could add another decade.  And make an interesting thing to speculate with regard to Josephus numbers.

That would change my year 6000 AM date from 1596 to 1556.

But because of certain secular correlations discussed above and how it'd revamp the Kingdom period, I still favor the 4405 BC Creation date.  I found one random site online predating my first making this post that states a 4405 BC Creation date, but it doesn't explain why.  It's Here, that seems to have taken it's info from this Yahoo Answers entry, where a comment leaver named Voice in The Wilderness gave a 4405 BC date 4 years ago.

There is also the option of counting the 390 years as including Solomon's reign since the iniquity did begin with his mistakes, including marrying the Daughter of Pharaoh right at the start.  And so you could end it with Josiah's Passover and still get the same time frame for the Divided Kingdom.

Now it's popular to interpret this 390 years as a prophecy about the Northern Kingdom's captivity and play all kind of games with it misusing the "seven times" statement from Levitcus which was not about time periods.

The Hebrew word translated iniquity means guilt and offense.  The few senses where it can be used of punishment it would mean punishment equivalent to the sin.  Like the captivity in Babylon being 70 years because for 490 years they didn't keep the sabbatical year, that's 70 sabbatical years.  So I have looked at eschatological applications for the 390 years, but they still must be proceeded by 390 years of sin.

February 3rd 2016 Update: I speculate on some Pre-Flood chronology in a new post.