 Colin Renfrew.jpg)
 John Bimson.jpg)
 David Rohl.jpg)
NEW Coherent CHRONOLOGY of Ancient History
Based on David Rohl's thesis and other independent experts. A NECESSARY REVISION OF THE CONVENTIONAL CHRONOLOGY.
.png)
"Chronology is the backbone of the history. Without exact chronology there can be no exact history". Edwin Thiele (The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings pg.33)
"Recent research.. has revealed a number of chronological anomalies which throw the conventional scheme of history into serious doubt." John J. Bimson (JACF Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum, vol.6 pg.19)
The seemingly daring intention to revise the standard chronology of ancient history is motivated by the evidence that some accounts of ancient history suffer from an excess of credibility. Moral Pérez G.
.png)
.jpg)
Consistent revised identification of King David and his Generals in EA 256!
(*) Mut-Bahlu: "Mutbaal means 'Man of Baal' and is identified with the biblical name Isbaal with the same meaning. Isbaal (also called Isboset) is the surviving son of King Saul who rules from Transjordan some time after his father's death on Mount Gilboa." (JACF Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum, vol.6 pg.51)
(*) Ayab: "The name Ayab of EA 256 (A-ya-ab) should be understood as Ya-ab with the prefix aleph, and the name should read 'Yah [weh] is the Father', an exact match for the name of Joab [David's general]." (JACF vol.6 pg.52)
(*) Benilima: Based on the context of the other figures in EA 256 and the distinctive features of the biblical character Benaiah, everything indicates that 'Benilima' ('son of the gods') would be an appropriate title for this man who he did extraordinary feats worthy of the gods, one of the most distinguished powerful men and bodyguard of King David. Moral Pérez G. / "It may be that the Benenima of the Amarna letter EA 256 is in fact the biblical Benaia, and not Baana, as proposed by Rohl. Baana is a fleeting character." Charles N.Pope (Domain of Man)
(*) Tadua: "[In his Amarna Personal Names] Richard S. Hess interprets 'Tadua' with a Hurrian name with the same Hebrew meaning for Dud / Dawd ('the beloved'). We can argue that the name 'Dadua' was the Hebrew variant from 'Tadua' used by the author of the books of Samuel" Peter van der Veen (JACF vol.8 pg.38) / "The name David is transcribed as Dad for example in the Septuagint (Alexandrian codex) in I Kings 2:33. The original name was therefore Dud / Dad with the meaning 'the beloved (or favorite)'.". (JACF vol.6 pg.52)
(*) Yishuya: As explained in JACF vol.6 pg.53, it is true that the name 'Yish-uya' agrees with the Hebrew 'Yish-ay' (Jesse: 'Yah Exist'), but it does not fit well with Jesse the father of David because he was already old. Rather, he would identify himself with another 'Jesse': the mighty Abishai ('Father Yah Exists') - nephew of David and brother of Joab-, since everything indicates that Jesse is a shortened form of Abishai. These two names are written in the Septuagint very similarly: 'Iessai' (Jesse) and 'Abessai' (Abishai). Consequently, all the characters mentioned in EA 256 would have a close historical relationship: on the one hand Isboset son of Saul, and on the other King David, his general Joab, and two of his closest and best men, Abishai and Benaiah. Moral Pérez G.
.png)
Patterns of Evidence for the Exodus: from myth to reality
"Many scholars take the position that the epic stories of the Old Testament have an almost complete lack of foundation in the archaeological record (Joseph, Jacob and the Israelites in Egypt). Simply put, archaeologists and historians have been looking in all the right for the biblical stories, but in entirely the wrong time. It is now clear that the Exodus never happened in the reign of Ramesses the Great, as most scholars and all the Hollywood movies have insisted, but rather in a much earlier period: the Middle Bronze Age."
Key identification in the revised chronology
"There remain many uncertainties in the TIP [Third Intermediate Period], as critics such us David Rohl have rightly maintained; even our basic premise of 925 BC for Shoshenq's campaign to Jerusalem is not built on solid foundations." Erik Hornung - Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Handbook of Oriental Studies I, 2006, pg. 13)
"The identification of the biblical Shishak with Shoshenk I of the 22nd Dynasty .. has been one of the major factors in determining Egypt's high chronology. This paper questions the validity of the identification and proposes that it should no longer stand an as obstacle to a radical revision of the chronology of the Third Intermediate Period." John J. Bimson - Shoshenk and Shishak, A Case of Mistaken Identity? (JACF 6 pg.19)
On this site, I share reflections on the need to reassess Egyptian chronology, as recent studies have highlighted various irregularities. This topic is explored in depth in my upcoming work, where I present alternative views from different researchers who have proposed a revised and more coherent chronology than the current model.
Ancient history presents significant difficulties in establishing precise chronology due to the fragile and fragmentary nature of the surviving sources. As C. W. Ceram observed, ancient records were often confused even in their own time and have reached us incomplete or distorted, requiring great caution in their interpretation. C.W. Ceram. El misterio de los hititas, Ediciones Orbis, 1985, pg. 69, 70.
Nevertheless, the task of the historian necessarily involves the willingness to revise conclusions in light of new evidence. J. A. Wilson emphasized that historical acceptance is always provisional and must be modified when fresh discoveries shed new light on earlier interpretations. J.A. Wilson. The World History of the Jewish People, 1964, vol. 1, pg. 280, 281. This principle is especially relevant in chronological studies.
Archaeology has provided a vast body of material evidence, yet its conclusions are not infallible. Merrill F. Unger warned that archaeological dates often depend on subjective factors and that significant divergences exist among specialists, cautioning against granting undue authority to established chronologies. Merrill F. Unger. Archaeology and the Old Testament, 1964, pg. 164.
Within this context, scholarly revisions have emerged from within academic Egyptology itself. One example is the work of Kim Ryholt, who proposed a reassessment of the sequence of rulers in the Second Intermediate Period, demonstrating that critical revision is compatible with rigorous scholarship. Kim S.B. Ryholt. The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period (1997).
Not all revisions, however, adhere to historical rigor. Radical theories such as those proposed by Anatoly Fomenko or Ahmed Osman have been widely rejected for their disregard of primary sources. As Erik Hornung noted, such attempts lack respect for basic historical evidence and do not merit serious discussion. Ancient Egyptian Chronology (2006), Introducción de Erik Hornung, pg 15.
Other controversial proposals do warrant examination. David Rohl's New Chronology, while not accepted by mainstream Egyptology, presents structured synchronisms between Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Levantine, and biblical chronologies. Even critics such as Chris Bennett have acknowledged that Rohl's work differs fundamentally from popular radical theories and demonstrates substantial command of the source material. Chris Bennett. "Temporal Fugues". Journal of Ancient and Medieval Studies XIII (1996).
The rationale for revisiting the standard chronology lies in the excessive confidence placed in certain foundational assumptions. Multiple indications suggest that key chronological anchors -particularly within Egyptian chronology established in the nineteenth century- may be inflated or misplaced. Frank Yurco acknowledged the growing tension between orthodox frameworks and revisionist approaches driven by accumulating evidence. Frank Yurco. Biblical Archaeology Review Julio/Agosto 1997 pg.8-10.
Chronological studies are not static. Sturt W. Manning observed that academic attention often returns to fundamental chronological problems only when established models are challenged by external or iconoclastic voices. Sturt W. Manning. Classical Review vol. 47 n.2 (1997) pg. 438-439.
One of the most debated issues concerns the integration of biblical and extra-biblical sources. While some scholars reject this approach outright, David Rohl has argued that the biblical text should be treated as a potentially reliable historical source, subject to the same critical scrutiny as any other ancient document. (The Lost Testament, pg.3) (A Test of Time, pg.11).
Admittedly, attempts to force archaeological data to fit biblical narratives have produced unsound interpretations. Nonetheless, the Bible has demonstrated historical and geographical reliability in numerous instances. Werner Keller highlighted that many archaeological discoveries have corroborated details long considered legendary. Introduction of "Y la Biblia tenía Razón", Werner Keller.
Systematically excluding this corpus on the basis of prejudice is no more justified than uncritically accepting traditional chronologies. In this study, the biblical text is employed as a comparative source alongside material evidence to identify potential misalignments in the standard chronological framework. The aim is to proceed from well-established periods backward in time to locate the point of divergence. This contribution does not claim finality, but seeks to engage constructively in the ongoing debate regarding the need to reassess certain segments of ancient historical chronology in light of available evidence.
·····························
·····························
·····························