To sum up thus far:
1. The schemes of third millennium BC chronology adopted
by the secularists do not cohere with the short timescale
of Gen. 11 for the same period; still less do the vast
archaeological ages of pre-literate cultures proposed for
the period prior to the emergence of the Sumerian city-states. Since it is known that several of the ostensibly
sequential dynasties of the Sumerian king list were in fact
contemporaneous, biblical historians should be looking
for evidence that these supposedly sequential ‘cultures’
were likewise contemporary with each other. A reduced
timeline is essential for correlation of ancient Mesopotamia
2. The scheme of Egyptian chronology requires compression,
and not only in one particular area, in order to correlate
it with a reduced time period for Mesopotamia, and with
scriptural chronology. The Early Dynastic period, the Old
Kingdom, and the three Intermediate periods all need to
be reduced, but this will require serious work by a team
of ancient historians and archaeologists working from a
3. Already there are hints and indications of correlations and
synchronisms in the Scripture, which not only require a
reduced timeline, but also provide some relatively fixed
points for a reconstruction of ancient chronology. A
subsequent article will explore this aspect further.
1. Kitchen, K.A., The Bible in its World, Paternoster, Exeter, UK, pp. 75–79, 1977;
idem, Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II, Warminster,
Aris & Phillips, pp. 70–71, 1982.
2. Hoffmeier, J.K., Israel in Egypt: the Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus
Tradition, OUP, Oxford, UK, 1996. After extensive discussion he tends to favour
a Ramesside Exodus, pp. 122–126.
3. Currid, J.D., Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI,
pp. 121–141, 1997. His is a Ramesside, late-date position.
4. Aling, C.F., Egypt and Bible History, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI, 1981. He adopts
an Eighteenth Dynasty date, with Amenhotep II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
5. Courville, D.A., The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Challenge Books,
Loma Linda, CA, 1971. He identifies the Pharaoh of the Exodus as Concharis
or Ka-ankh-Ra in the Thirteenth Dynasty.
6. See Åstrom, P., High, Middle, or Low?, Acts of an International Colloquium
on Absolute Chronology held at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg,
7. See Bryce, T., The Kingdom of the Hittites, Oxford, p. 193, 1998, citing
Güterbock, H.G., The deeds of Suppiluliuma, as told by his son Mursili II,
JCS 10: 94, 1956.
8. See Rohl, D., A Test of Time, Arrow Books, Random House, London,
9. Following for convenience P.A. Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs, Thames
and Hudson, London, 1994. Other Egyptologists may have somewhat different
dates, but they are essentially variations on the theme.
10. Following the Chronological Tables in G. Roux, Ancient Iraq, 3rd edn, Penguin
Books, London, 1992, but also noting Kuhrt, A., The Ancient Near East:
c. 3000–330 BC, Routledge, London, 1995, for revised dates.
11. Kuhrt, ref. 10, p. 46.
Murray R. Adamthwaite graduated from Melbourne
University in 1997 with a Ph.D. in Near Eastern History
and Languages, and serves as sessional lecturer for the
Centre for Classics and Archaeology. He also is Tutor in
Old Testament with Tyndale College, Hunters Hill, NSW
12. As with the title of the book by Kramer, S.N., History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Recorded History, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA,
13. As also proposed by Van Gelderen, noted by Gispen, W.H., Who was
Nimrod?; in: Skilton, J.H. (Ed.), The Law and the Prophets, Presbyterian and
Reformed, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 208–229, 1974. Petrovich, D., discusses this
matter at length and comes to the same conclusion; see Identifying Nimrod of
Genesis 10 with Sargon of Akkad by exegetical and archaeological means,
JETS 56( 2):275–276, 2013.
14. Adamthwaite, M.R., Languages of the post-diluvian world, J. Creation 30( 1):
15. See Kramer, S.N., The Sumerians, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL,
pp. 45–49, 1963
16. Contrary to Gispen, ref. 13, n. 12, and the other authors whom he cites,
pp. 209–211 and notes.
17. Petrovich sees the name as a ‘dysphemism’ (the opposite of a euphemism),
ref. 13, n. 12 and p. 277.
18. See discussion by Petrovich, D., ref. 13, pp. 278–280.
19. Gordon, C.H., Abraham and the merchants of Ura, J. Near Eastern Studies 17:
28–31, 1958. Hershel Shanks has recently re-opened the case for a northern
location in his article, Abraham’s Ur: Is the Pope Going to the Wrong Place?
Centre for Online Jewish Studies, cojs.org/abrahams-ur-is-the-pope-going-to-the-wrong-place/. Millard, A. R., has replied to this: Where was Abraham’s Ur?
The case for the Babylonian City, Biblical Archaeology Review 27( 3): 52–53,
20. Hartley, J.E., The Book of Job, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 97–98, 1988.
In a footnote he refers to the Arabic root hrm, “be decayed”, which the Arabs use
to refer to the pyramid ruins. Some scholars insist that hiorābōt is the Hebrew
equivalent of hrm.
21. Callender, G., The Middle Kingdom renaissance; in: Shaw, I. (Ed.), The Oxford
History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford, UK, pp. 180–182, 2000.
22. Gibson, E.C.S., The Book of Job, Originally published 1899, reproduced by
Klock and Klock, Minneapolis, MN, pp. xix–xxi, 1978.
23. However, the name does appear in Job 12: 9. Hartley explains this as probably
a copyist’s error, whereby he substituted the more familiar “hand of the LORD”
for “hand of God”. Hence some Hebrew manuscripts read there’eloah, instead
of YHWH. See Hartley, ref. 20, n. 4, p. 208.
24. Archer, G.L., Jr, The Book of Job, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 14–16, 1982.