Somebody once told me the bible is wrong because it conflicts with egyptian history. I checked it out and drafted the following report. I am no longer in contact with this chap and so I would welcome any observations before i finish my work on this section. Thanks
1. ABSTRACT
Some have noted that the bible conflicts with modern secular history with ancient civilisations such as the Egyptians. They may say that the pyramids were built before the flood or that the list of pharaohs conflicts with those mentioned in the bible. Popular secular belief also suggests that the Egyptian civilisation appeared a thousand years before some of the events recorded in the bible when calculating the bible timeline.
The intention of this paper is to identify why these claims are made and whether they are based upon substantiated facts or not. We will avoid discussing the flood in detail as this is documented elsewhere in section 7.15.
2. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE
The most common methods used to chart the history of ancient Egypt is through the use of ancient records. These may include but are not limited to the Turin King List, or later historical writings from Herodotus or Manetho. King lists are also found engraved in stonework in such works known as the Abydos King list, the Karnak king list, the Palermo stone and the Saqqara Tablet to name just a few. Other finds include statues and structures such as the pyramids which may also give us clues about who the prinicipal builders where, and where they fit in with history.
This paper will briefly explain the origin of some of these mentioned sources, and provide a general overview of what we can expect to gain from using these as our source material for understanding the history of ancient Egypt.
3. AN OVERVIEW OF THE SOURCES
Turin king list
Some say the list now commonly known as the Turin King List or the Turin Royal Canon was made during the reign of Ramesses II who is commonly thought to have ruled arounnd 1279 BCE. It is said that an Italian by the name of Bernardino Drovetti found the papyrus designated papyrus no. 1874 in 1820 CE at Luxor and that it was later aquired by the Egyptian Museum in Turin were it has remained since. During transit to Italy it is understood that damage was incurred and when it was opened it became fragmented and had to be reassembled again as best as possible. When the partially disintegrated fragments (160 nr in all) are pieced together it is some 1.7m long and 0.41m high. It is said to be only 50% complete. It is said to contain some 255 names if we start from column 2 row 11 (Pharaoh Menes). Column 1 contains names of Gods of egypt and column 2 rows 1-10 names of spirits and mythical kings. Of the 255 names mentioned some 51 are lost or unknown and several more are dubious or difficult to read. Note the Turin King List papyrus ends at the 17th dynasty and so does not corroborate the positions of so called pharaohs of the subsequent dynasties.
Manetho
Manetho (or Manethon , Greek: Μαν?θων, Μαν?θως ) was an Egyptianhistorian and priest from Sebennytos (ancient Egyptian: Tjebnutjer) who is said to have lived during the Ptolemaic era, approximately during the 3rd century BC. Manetho wrote the Aegyptiaca (History of Egypt). His work is of great interest to Egyptologists, and is often used as evidence for the chronology of the reigns of pharaohs.
The Aegyptiaca (Ancient Greek ? ιγυπτιακ?, Aigyptiaka), the "History of Egypt", was Manetho's largest work, and certainly the most important. It was organised chronologically and divided into three volumes, and his division of rulers into dynasties was an innovation. However, he did not use the term in the modern sense, by bloodlines, but rather, introduced new dynasties whenever he detected some sort of discontinuity whether geographical (Dynasty IV from Memphis, Dynasty V from Elephantine), or genealogical (especially in Dynasty I, he refers to each successive Pharaoh as the "son" of the previous to define what he means by "continuity"). Within the superstructure of a genealogical table of rulers, he fills in the gaps with substantial narratives of the Pharaonic rulers.
Some have suggested that Aegyptiaca was written as a competing account to Herodotus' Histories, to provide a national history for Egypt that did not exist before. From this perspective, Against Herodotus may have been an abridged version or just a part of Aegyptiaca that circulated independently. Unfortunately, neither survives in its original form today.
J.H Breasted the american archaeologist calls Manethos annal a “collection of childish folk-tales” (Gods, graves & scholars, C. W. Ceram, Second revised edition, 1967, page 123)
Abydos king list
The Abydos King List , also called the Abydos Table is a list of the names of seventy-six kings and pharaohs of Ancient Egypt, found on the walls of the Temple of Seti I at Abydos, Egypt. It consists of three rows of thirty-eight cartouches on each row. The upper two rows contain names of the kings, while the third row merely repeats Seti I's throne name and praenomen.
Besides providing the order of the Old Kingdom rulers (albeit often obviously incorrectly), it is the sole source to date of the names of many of the rulers of the Seventh and Eighth Dynasties, so the list is valued highly for that reason.
This list omits the names of many pharaohs who were 'erased' from this revised history — such as Hatshepsut, Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamen, and Ay.
Karnak king list
The Karnak king list was located in the southwest corner of the Akh-Menu Hall. Composed during the reign of Thutmose III, it lists sixty-one kings beginning with Sneferu from Egypt's Old Kingdom. Only the names of forty-eight kings are still legible, and one is not written in a cartouche.
In 1843, French adventurer Emile Prisse dismantled and stole the blocks containing the king list at night, claiming to act "in the interests of France." He had found out that a German expedition led by egyptologist Karl Richard Lepsius was making its way up the Nile to Karnak. [1] Severely damaged, it is now on display at the Louvre in Paris (Chambre des Ancetres.)
Palermo stone
The Palermo Stone is a large fragment of a stele known as the Royal Annals of the Old Kingdom of Ancient Egypt. It contains records of the kings of Egypt from the first dynasty through the fifth dynasty.
The fragment is in the Salinas Regional Archaeological Museum in Palermo, Italy, from which it derives its name. The term "Palermo Stone" is sometimes incorrectly applied to the entire Royal Annals, which also includes other fragments located in museums in Cairo and London that have never been in Palermo.
The stele, made of black basalt, was engraved toward the end of the fifth dynasty, in the 25th century BC. It lists the kings of ancient Egypt following the unification of Lower Egypt (the region of the Nile River Delta in the north of Egypt) and Upper Egypt (extending from the middle of modern Egypt to the southern border with Nubia).
The text begins by listing several thousands of years of rulers — presumed by many to be mythical — predating the rise of the god Horus, who, according to the text, conferred the kingship on Menes, the first human ruler listed. The text credits Menes with the unification of Egypt. [1] (Another name for Menes is thought to be Narmer, but this could be the name of the next ruler.)
The text goes on to list the names of the kings who ruled Egypt up to King Neferirkare Kakai, a ruler of the early fifth dynasty, [2] although the original stela may have recorded events after his reign on portions that have since been lost. On the stone is given impo The stone was inscribed on both sides with the earliest known Egyptian text. The stela was originally about 2.1 metres tall by 60 centimetres wide. It was broken into a number of pieces, many of which are missing. The original location of the stela is unknown, but a portion of it was found at an archaeological site in Memphis.
Saqqara tablet
The Saqqara Tablet in the Egyptian Museum contains one of several lists of Egyptian pharaohs surviving from the Ramesside Period. It is said to have been found in 1861 in the Saqqara tomb of Tjenry (or Tjuneroy), an official ("chief lector priest" and "Overseer of Works on All Royal Monuments") of Ramesses II.
The inscription lists 58 kings from Anedjib and Qa'a (1st dynasty) to Ramesses II (19th dynasty) in reverse chronological order, omitting "rulers from the Second Intermediate Period, the Hyksos, and those rulers... who had been close to the heretic Akhenaten". The cartouches (of which only 47 survive) are badly damaged.
4. OBJECTIONS IDENTIFIED
One of the key objections to bible history when compared with the secular history of the ancient civilisation of Egypt is that the first commonly accepted pharaoh known as Menes ruled around the year 3098 BCE. Other rulers are said to have ruled before him but most accept these are mythical or names of the gods of Egypt.
If we take Menes as the starting point this would suggest he ruled several hundred years before the biblical flood which would appear to be at odds with biblical history. If we consider the 3000 or so years of pharaoh rule in ancient Egypt then the fact that the bible appears to be about 700 + years out of syncronisation suggests that the early part of the bible history is out by some 25% with respects time when compared with secular history.
When we look further down the list of pharaohs we read about a number of different pharaohs in the scriptures including probably the most famous of these being Rameses who is first mentioned in Genesis 47:8-11 and mentioned later several times. Again it is not entirely clear from either secular history or biblical history when exactly this Rameses ruled. It is evident from biblical history that Jacob brought his family into the “land of Rameses” around 1728 BCE and had an audience with the then serving ruler but it is not clear if this was in fact Rameses or someone else. Later when Moses is said to have led the exodus of the Israelites out from Egypt around 1513 BCE he is said to have departed “from Rameses for Succoth” but in both instances it would appear the scripture uses the expression Rameses as a region rather than suggesting he was actually ruling at the time. In any event the objection posed by most bible critics is that Rameses is not supposed to have even been born at this time. They argue that the pharaoh known as Usermaatre-setpenre Ramesses II ruled around 1279 BCE during the 18 th dynasty of Egypt. Again if we consider the math here the suggestion is that biblical history is out by some 460 years or is in error by around 15% in its dating.
Perhaps ruling before him was a man named Pithom (Exodus 1:11) although this pharaoh is not even mentioned in any of the said king lists. So the suggestion here is that the bible has made reference to a pharaoh that never existed or perhaps again it was referring to a location or geographical region again.
Later still we read in the bible book of 1 Kings 11:40 that Shishak is now ruling as pharaoh in Egypt and various biblical sources record his invasion of Judah around 993 BCE (1 Kings 13:25-28; 2 Chronicles 12:1-12). Secular sources suggest Hedjkheperre-setpenre Shoshenq I ruled as pharaoh of Egypt 943 BCE meaning that if this is one and the same man as is often thought then the bible history is now almost aligned with secular history being only 50 or so years out or in percentage terms just 2%.
Later in Jeremiah 44:30 pharaoh Hophra is said to have ruled as king of Egypt around 634 BCE whilst pharaoh Nechoh is said to have ruled around 624 BCE – 2 Kings 23:33. Although there is no apparent mention of Hophra in secular history Menkheperre Nekau I (Necho I) is said to have ruled as pharaoh of Egypt in 672 BCE and then a little later in 610 BCE Wehemibre Necho II (Necho II) ruled as pharaoh.
So we can see that the later mention of the ruling pharaohs appears to fairly accurate (with the exception of Hophra) in terms of their names and approximate dates of rulership when compared with secular history, but as we go further back we see that secular history suggests that the bible record is inaccurate by maybe 15% or 25% or even that some rulers never existed. But for these claims to stand up and have any merit the egytptian history would need to be somewhat error free. But is it? Lets now review the various king lists to see how accurate they are.
5. HOW ACCURATE ARE THE SECULAR SOURCES
When we review and compare the various king lists mentioned at the outset of this paper it is a most surprising fact that the older the king or pharaoh the more well documented his place in history appears to be. So when we consider all the various lists the first couple of dynasties share a remarkable consistency meaning that the ancient secular historians appeared to agree on who ruled and in which order they ruled. Note however that no dates are given as to their rule.
We note that in general terms some of the names between the lists vary sometimes slightly and sometimes by a margin. We are careful where possible not to jump to conclusions in thinking these are errors as they may simply be caused by language differences or a different dialect and the like.
We will begin by considering the Saqqara tablet which is the exception to general rule stated above in connection with the earlier dynasties.
It misses 5 of the earlier pharaohs starting from Menes, Hor-Aha, Djer, Djet, Den. Its 6th error is in the omission of Semerkhet. The 7th error is the omission of Nebka or Sanakte at the beginning of the third dynasty. We could ignore its omission of Chaires and later Cheneris mentioned by Manetho as this is probably just an error on Manethos part as no other lists appear to validate this entry. Again there are four similar mistakes by Manetho at the end of the third dynasty which we will not count. Between Khafra and Menkaure it misses out a pharaoh that both the Manetho list and the Turin king list say ruled – so this is its 8th error. The turin king list name is missing however it is thought to be Baka whereas the Manetho list says it is Ratoisis. Further down in the fifth dynasty we see our 9th error as it misses Nyuserre Ini. The 10th error is the omission of Userkare. It then misses out Merenre Saemsaf or Menthesupis making the 11th error. We now come to the beginning of the major problems with the Saqqara tablet. Until this juncture (pharaoh number 36 Neferkare) all the pharaohs listed occur in chronological order albeit numbering only 36 kings as opposed to 43 kings suggested by the Turin king list. At this point however the Saqqara tablet now misses another 30 kings when compared to the Turin king list and in doing so misses some 200 years of Egyptian history. The next few kings 37 - 46 although listed are in the wrong order when compared with other lists however we will ignore this oversight. The last chronologically speaking is 37 Sobekkare who is said to have ruled around 1807 BCE is similarly the last pharaoh mentioned for a while when the Saqqara tablet is matched with the other lists. The next comparable listing is in the eighteenth dynasty when king number 47 Nebpehtire or Ahmose I is said to have begun ruling around 1550 BCE. This jump misses some 145 pharoahs when compared with the Turin king list, and although the other lists are similarly silent the Karnak king list does support some of these listed in the Turin document. In terms of years these latest omissions leave another 253 years of Egyptian rule blank. Broadly speaking the final listings contained within the Saqqare tablet are populated fairly accurately when compared with other listings barring the odd anomaly. The major discrepancy is the jump from Nebmaatre to menpehtyre is some 100 years with only one possible pharaoh ruling in between whereas other lists mention several rulers. At this point the Saqqara tablet king list ends.
So looking at the Saqqara tablet in summary it covers about 1850 years of the early pharaoh rule in Egypt during which time the various other sources when compared and combined suggest some 250 pharaohs ruled. But the Saqqara tablet only mentions 58 of these rulers and so neglects to mention some 199 other pharaohs. W e could therefore say that it contains 199 major errors or omissions. There are some other minor omissions and or anomolies such as the sequence of some of these kings but we will ignore these. Statistically speaking this means that the Saqqara tablet only contains 25% of the pharaohs it should contain during these timeframes, or conversely it is 75% incorrect. In terms of years it misses several hundred years of rulership suggesting it is some 40% incorrect. Either way we can see that on the surface the facts are that the Saqqara tablet significantly conflicts with other historical data from Egypt to a far greater extent than the biblical historical records.
We will now look at the Abydos king list. Like with the Saqqara we could ignore its omission of Chaires and later Cheneris mentioned by Manetho as this is probably just an error on Manethos part as no other lists appear to validate this entry. The 1st noticeable error is the omission of the pharaoh sekhemib-perenmaat which probably corresponds with Manethos sesochris and king number 10 off of the Saqqara tablet. The 2nd error is the omission of Neferkasokar who apparently ruled around 2728 BCE. Again there are four similar mistakes by Manetho at the end of the third dynasty which we will not count. Between Khafra and Menkaure it misses out a pharaoh that both the Manetho list and the Turin king list say ruled – so this is its 3rd error. The turin king list name is missing however it is thought to be Baka whereas the Manetho list says it is Ratoisis. After this the 4 th error is the omission of Djedefptah. The 5 th error is the omission of Shepseskare. The 6th error is the omission of Neferkara I or Nitocris. Like the Saqqara tablet we now see the Abydos misses some 16 + kings mentioned predominantly by the Turin king list and partially supported by the Karnak king list. This omission covers some 100 years between 2158 BCE and 2060 BCE. Again similar to the Saqqara tablet we now see after Maaakherure in 1815 BCE some 145 pharaohs omitted until the rule of Nebpehtira/Ahmose I in 1550 or in duration 265 years missed. Error number 167 is the omission of Maatkare Hatshepsut or Mephramuthosis around 1473 BCE. As with the Saqqara tablet the final major discrepancy is the jump from Nebmaatre to menpehtyre is some 100 years with only one possible pharaoh ruling in between whereas other lists mention several rulers. At this point the Abydos king list ends.
So looking at the Abydos king list in summary it covers about 1850 years of the early pharaoh rule in Egypt during which time the various other sources when compared and combined suggest some 250 pharaohs ruled. But the Abydos list only mentions 76 of these rulers and so neglects to mention some 167 other pharaohs. We could therefore say that it contains 167 major errors or omissions. There are some other minor omissions and or anomolies but we will ignore these. Statistically speaking this means that the Abydos list only contains 30% of the pharaohs it should contain during these timeframes, or conversely it is 70% incorrect. In terms of years it misses several hundred years of rulership suggesting it is some 40% incorrect. Either way we can see that on the surface the facts are that the Abydos king list significantly conflicts with other historical data from Egypt to a far greater extent than the biblical historical records. Another way we can look at this is that actually the Saqqara tablet and the Abydos king list which are both very similar in number of pharaohs and time are correct but this would mean that instead of there being 250 rulers between 3098 BCE and say 1258 BCE there were only 70 or 80 rulers with the implication being that the time covered will also be significantly less, but believing this possibility only discredits other Egyptian historical data as we shall see, and on the other hand supports the biblical history which we noted earlier suggests that Egyptian history dates some several hundred years too long.
We will now look at the Karnak king list. Unlike most Egyptian king lists this misses the first two dynasties entirely. It contains only Neferkare from the third dynasty and Sneferu from the fourth dynasty. Perhaps most notable with this list other than the obvious difficulty in reconciling why it omits so many kings is that it suggests the order in which they ruled is incorrect in other lists. For instance Intef I (tenth in the list) is commonly said to have ruled around 2135BCE however in the Karnak list it is placed before Teti and Pepi who are said to have commonly ruled in the sixth dynasty from 2345 BCE.
So looking at the Karnak king list in summary it is difficult to say what time period it is supposed to cover as many of the later kings names are destroyed or unreadable making it very unclear where they are supposed to fit in the histories of Egypt. Certainly with the mention of Intef VII or Nub-kheper-re number twenty eight in its list it must cover a similar period to the Turin King list. If it covered the same period as the previous two then this is about 1850 years of the early pharaoh rule in Egypt during which time the various other sources when compared and combined suggest some 250 pharaohs ruled. But the list only mentions 61 of these rulers and so neglects to mention some 189 other pharaohs. We could therefore say that it contains 189 major errors or omissions. There are some other minor omissions and or anomolies such as the sequencing of the various kings but we will ignore these for the present. Statistically speaking this means that the Karnak king list only contains 25% of the pharaohs it should contain during these timeframes, or conversely it is 75% incorrect. In terms of years it misses several hundred years of rulership suggesting it is some 40% incorrect. Either way we can see that on the surface the facts are that the Karnak king list significantly conflicts with other historical data from Egypt to a far greater extent than the biblical historical records.
We will now look at the Turin king list. There are some 227 pharaohs listed although some of the names are destroyed counting from the first dynasty with Menes until the seventeenth dynasty some 1500 years later. We could ignore its omission of Chaires and later Cheneris mentioned by Manetho as this is probably just an error on Manethos part as no other lists appear to validate this entry. Again there are four similar mistakes by Manetho at the end of the third dynasty which we will not count. We could point to king number 13 on the third column after “kha” or Khafre as the 1st error and ask who this is supposed to be as there is little or no support for this pharaoh elsewhere. In the eigth dynasty there are five kings listed in the Abydos list that are not included in the Turin document but we will ignore these as they could feasibly be some of the destroyed names. In the ninth dynasty we see some 13 or so kings that are not corroborated by any other of the lists. Who are these kings? Why do we trust the Turin document over the others? Around the thirteenth dynasty there are some 30 kings listed and only about 11 of these are supported by the Karnak king list. How can we be sure these other kings really existed at this time? Again in the fourteenth dynasty we see about 35 kings listed in the Turin king list with only a couple corroborated by the Karnak king list. Leading down to the seventeenth dynasty we see a further 80 or so kings listed with only a handful of kings from the Karnak king list in support. It is noted at this juncture that there are some 23 kings from the Karnak king list which are difficult to place in the timeline and so these may corroborate the Turin king list in certain areas.
So looking at theTurin king list in summary it appears that it covers a period of about 1550 years of the early pharaoh rule in Egypt during which time the various other sources when compared and combined suggest some 230 pharaohs ruled. Now this long list of pharaohs provides a mention or at the very least a position for most of these but when compared to the other lists is far too many and looking at the detail is appears it lists some 120 or so pharaohs that other lists do not mention. We could therefore say that it contains 120 major errors or additions. There are some other minor anomolies such as the sequencing of the various kings but we will ignore these for the present. Statistically speaking this means that the Turin king list contains 50% more pharaohs than it should contain during these timeframes, or conversely it is 50% incorrect. In terms of years it adds some eight hundred years of rulership suggesting it is some 50% incorrect. Either way we can see that on the surface the facts are that the Turin king list significantly conflicts with other historical data from Egypt to a far greater extent than the biblical historical records.
We will ignore the Palemro stone at this stage as it could feasibly be so damaged that the conclusions drawn from its omissions would be misleading. We will now look at Manethos king lists.
Starting from Menes Manethos list follows the trend in the early dynasties and corroborates many of the kings listed elsewhere. Its 1st error would be the omission of Qebeh mentioned in many of the other lists as the last king of the first dynasty. After this we see the addition of names such as Chaires, Cheneris, the omission of Khasekhemwy, and the addition of four further kings at the end of the third dynasty. Many of the names used by Manetho are unfamiliar to the reader when comparing other lists for instance the fourth dynasty is a good example but we could interpret this as purely a language difficulty and ignore this apparent lapse. Its 9 th error would be the omission of Userkare who must have ruled around 2333 BCE according to the Turin and Abydos documents. A further possible error is the addition of Nitocris but the Turin list does have a unnamed pharaoh around this time which could corroborate Manetho, and Herodotus points to this pharaoh possibly being a woman. Manetho now misses some 30 kings who reigned during the seventh through to the tenth dynasty according to other lists. This would appear to be nearly 250 years of history lost. The 40 th error would be the omission of Khutawire Sobekhotep around 1803 BCE. After this is misses a further 144 kings listed in other documents, primarily the Turin king list. Again this is in excess of 250 years of history that is missing in Manethos king list.
So looking at Manethos king list in summary it appears that it covers a period of about 1900 years of the early pharaoh rule in Egypt during which time the various other sources when compared and combined suggest some 260 pharaohs ruled. But Manethos list only mentions 76 of these rulers and so neglects to mention some 177 other pharaohs. In addition several of these rulers do not even appear to be mentioned in other records. We could therefore say that it contains 188 major errors or omissions. There are some other minor omissions and or anomolies but we will ignore these. Statistically speaking this means that the Manethos list only contains 30% of the pharaohs it should contain during these timeframes, or conversely it is 70% incorrect. In terms of years it misses several hundred years of rulership suggesting it is some 40% incorrect. Either way we can see that on the surface the facts are that the Manethos king list significantly conflicts with other historical data from Egypt to a far greater extent than the biblical historical records.
Altough the very latest modern dating places Menes rule around 3100 BCE over the years various authourities have tabled vastly different dates for the rule of the first Egyptian dynasty. Jean-Francois Champollion dated it at 5867 BCE. Lesueur said 5770. Bokh says 5702. Unger 5613. Auguste Mariiette 5004. Brugsch 4455. Lauth 4157. Chabas 4000. Lepsius 3892. Bunsen 3623. Edward Meyer 3180. Wilkinson 2320. Leonard R. Palmer 2224. More recently the date has been pushed back again by James Breasted who date Menes at 3400. Georg Steindorff at 3200 and newer research at 2900.
Modern timelines of the pharaohs put Thutmose I as ruling for 28 years from 1520 BCE to 1492 BCE or as ruling for just 14 years from 1506 BCE to 1493 BCE. But consider that in the middle of the twentieth century he was said to have ruled for 30 years from 1545 BCE to 1515 BCE
Consider Amosis I who is said to have ruled for 25 years from 1580-1555 BCE whereas modern timelines put him as ruling for just 9 years from 1550-1541 BCE. Again consider Amenophis whose mummy Brugsch discovered. He is said to have ruled for 10 years from 1555-1545 BCE (Gods, graves & scholars, C. W. Ceram, Second revised edition, 1967, page 168). Modern timelines once again have revised this date given just 50 years ago and say he ruled for 21 years from 1541-1520 BCE.
Continuing further down the king list we come across Thutmose III. Modern timelines say he ruled for about 6 years from 1479-1473 BCE but others place him as ruling from 1501-1447 BCE with his rule lasting 54 years (Gods, graves & scholars, C. W. Ceram, Second revised edition, 1967, page 169).
Finally we will now review the rule of Ramses II who is said to have been ruling during the time of Moses. Early investigations have placed his rule at 1292-1232 BCE for a duration of about 70 years (Gods, graves & scholars, C. W. Ceram, Second revised edition, 1967, page 169). However modern timelines show Rameses I ruling from 1292 and Rameses II not ruling until several other rulers had been in power putting his date sometime later by 15 or 20 years.
3. CONCLUSION
So what can we reasonably conclude from the foregoing? We can see that the bible is not fully corroborated by some secular historical sources especially with respects the history of the people of Egypt, but we also see that these same secular sources conflict with one another. No doubt through time and further study some of these stated “errors” may be explained. For instance one may argue that some our pharaohs above are misunderstood and that they are to be compared to a different pharaoh elsewhere meaning that the said pharaoh forcing the “error” is not a mistake at all. Whilst this may help reduce one error we do well not to forget that in removing one problem we may simply cause another mistake elsewhere. One way or the other 200 kings in one list will not be explained by this view when trying to correlate to a list of 50 kings in another list. So this view would not improve the grave difficulty of these secular sources conflicting with one another by any fair margin.
What may remove some of these said “errors” is the possibility that some of these pharaohs coexisted at the same time in different regions. So whilst some of the lists don’t mention various pharaohs this may simply be explained by the fact that they do not cover a certain geographical region whilst others do. This possibility has been observed during my studies and yet we have not been able to satisfactorily introduce these facts into our study thus far. However, in general terms it may go some way to explaining the gulf between the two percentages of error made in the case of each list. You may recall that in each instance we noted that perhaps 70% of the pharaohs were missing in some lists even though we were only missing a relatively smaller period of time for example 40% when we look at the detail. The argument stated would probably answer why the higher percentage is observed and as a result we should be cautious not to suggest the lists are in error by the higher percentage. We can imagine that a good portion of these others pharaohs have in fact ruled in different regions during periods of rule by other pharaohs. So the number of pharaohs is not the greatest difficulty but the vast omissions of time in the majority of these list remains a grave difficulty to reconcile with the commonly held view of modern secular historians.
When we consider the above summaries for each of the secular sources we can see that in terms of missing time period and pharaohs the Saqqara tablet, the Abydos king list, the karnak king list and Manethos king lists are all in error by some 40% whilst the Turin king list is in error by some 50%. Now it is obvious that if we are saying one list is in error because it omits a pharaoh stated on another list it is not precisely fair to then say conversely that this list is also in error because it states the said pharaoh and yet this is what we are showing in these statistics. The reason this is shown in the percentages is because we do not know which list is right and which are wrong and therefore cannot proceed from this position. So each list is compared with the other lists in isolation.
We could speculate which list is right and wrong and see where this takes us. Perhaps the most logical place to start is with the Turin king list as this appears to be most erroneous and most in apparent conflict with the biblical history. Where the other lists suffer from act of omission the Turin king list appears to add many pharaohs and many years to the Egyptian history. If we were to discount the turin list of 250 or so rulers then the Saqqara tablets 58 rulers, the Abydos list 76, the karnak lists 61 rulers, and Manethos lists 76 rulers all appear to be very much aligned. One can plainly see the margin of error in these numbers is greatly reduced when we discard the Turin king list. But if we did this what would this mean for Egyptian history? Well when we try to fit the other king lists into and around the 250 or so kings in the turin king list we span a time period of some 1900 years. But as the reader can imagine if we are now only looking at 70 or 80 rulers from Menes to Rameses or the 18 th Dynasty the time period is greatly reduced by perhaps two thirds or in years maybe as much as 1000 years. This realignment would also fit a great deal easier into the biblical history of the post flood era from around 2370 BCE through to 1500 BCE.
But what about the pharaohs that are recorded in the bible that do not even appear in these king lists? We cannot conclude that the bibles mention of various pharaohs not supported in these king lists means that the said pharaohs never existed. After all absence of proof is not proof of absence. Furthermore the various king lists set a precedent in that they consistently add or omit pharaohs that other lists do not. So we could predict that any given king list will likely have at least one or two additions or omissions and this should not be taken as erroneous. What would be erroneous is if there were a great many such differences, which in the bibles case there are not.
When we consider specifically the case of the man named Pithom, if this reference is indeed to a man and not a location (Exodus 1:11) although none of the lists mention him by name Herodotus does mention Pheros and then Proteus as immediately preceding Rhampsinitos (Rameses) so probably the bible here is corroborated by Herodotus account. Whilst some may argue that Herodotus account is not corroborated by the other lists we also have the additional account of Homer who in his Odyssey 4.382 he states “ there is an old immortal who lives under the sea hereabouts and whose name is Proteus. He is an Egyptian” . Again critics may argue that these references are to mythical gods but then we see this same problem when we read the first names mentioned in many of these Egyptian king lists. For example in some lists immediately prior to Menes the Scorpion king and Ra are said to have ruled. So how can we be sure names mentioned later in the lists are not simply mythical?
But what about the difficulty of Rameses we mentioned at the outset? Well when we consider the above facts and observations we see that it is possible that many of the kings in the Turin king list co-existed with one another, if they ever lived at all. This possibility when considered with the far shorter king lists found elsewhere suggest that the time span these kings ruled is much shorter than is currently thought. If this is the case then both the starting points and end points for these pharaohs can be greatly reduced and fits almost perfectly into the biblical history. So if Rameses did rule a few hundred years earlier than presently thought there really is no conflict with the bible chronology at all.
We conclude this section by comparing a little of Herodotus history with that of the bible:
Herodotus says in the histories that 'after Proteus, they told me, Rhampsinitos succeeded to the Kingdom, who left as a memorial to himself that gateway to the temple ... which is turned towards the West, and in front of the gateway he set up two statues, in height thirty eight feet, of which one stands on the North side ... and the one on the south side ... down to the time Rhampsinitos was king, they told me there was in egypt nothing but orderly rule, and Egypt prospered greatly; but after him Cheops became king over them and brought them every kind of evil.' - Book II p 117 - 121.
Rhampsinitos also is alleged to have granted a thief a pardon because he 'greatly marvelled at him ... counting him to be the most knowing among all men' suggesting he was distinguished from all other men including his fellow egyptians. He also gave him his daughter in marriage.
Now Cheops 'shut up all the temples, and having kept them from sacrifices there, he ordered all the Egyptians work for him' collecting stone, building a causeway, creating channels and underground chambers and then the pyramid superstructure. The pyramid took 20 years to build. After Cheops reigned for 50 years Chephren his brother reigned for 56 years. They did not like the kings. They liked Philitis the sheperd.
Then Mykerinos became king who was the son of cheops. Though reported to be better than his father calamities befell him and his firstborn daughter died, although the details of how are nebulous. An oracle apparently warned him that he would die in six years so he tried to light night so that it was like day and thereby extend his life to 12 years.
Now compare the above excerpts from Herodotus Histories written some 2500 years ago with some of the bible history written some 3500 years ago:
Some time after Abraham first visits the Pharaoh of Egypt Joseph (possibly known as Imhotep?) and then Jacob comes into the land of Rameses and the early Israelite nation beings dwelling in Egypt (Genesis 47:8-11). Perhaps around this point a Pharaoh called Phithom rules (Exodus 1:11) Now Jacobs son Joseph had been imprisoned for a few years and was eventually pardoned because he was able to explain Pharaoh’s dreams who said no other man could "be found like this one" in the whole of Egypt (Gen 41:38). As a reward he makes Joseph Prime minister and gives him Asenath the daughter of Potiphera the priest of On as his wife (Gen 41:45)
The bible tells us “in time there arose over Egypt a new king who did not know Joseph" and after they enslaved them they forced them to go “building cities as storage places for Pharaoh” (Exodus 1:8-14). Some 145 years or so passed since Joseph died and the God of the Israelites had various plagues befall the Egyptians including the ninth in which a gloomy darkness befell all of Egypt culminating in the final calamity which resulted in the death of the firstborn of Pharaoh (Exodus 10:22; 12:29).
We can see a number of striking similarities to the account of Herodotus here and the biblical records. Although imperfect the general facts almost correspond and occur in a similar sequence. Here we have then some apparent corroborating document supporting scripture.
From the foregoing we see no reason to believe the modern secular version of the Egyptian history is any more trustworthy than the biblical history. Instead we see that this version of history is based upon damaged information that may or may not reflect the original record, accounts that conflict, accounts that have substantial differences both add and omit. Whilst the bible lacks numerous detail regarding the Egyptian histories we can see that it does correspond in most parts with at least one source of secular history and could be considered as reliable as the secular records. Adding to this fact that elsewhere the bible is highly supported we could be forgiven for accepting its records in the Egyptian history as more reliable.