Welcome Logo

Animated Bible flipping pages

Current Lecture Button

Home Button

Lecture Button

Library Button

Announcement Button

Who Is MSS  Button

Book Shop Button

Amazon Books Button

Press Button

Expedition Button

Site Index


Many authors have commented upon and criticized the dependence of Egyptian Chronology on the Sothic theory of dating so I have decided to include extensive quotes from their work here.

You might well ask why, if such criticism is valid has it not been widely accepted by the academic Egyptological community before now. The problem has been that the most cogent arguments against the theory have come from people whose other conclusions in the field have been widely discredited. These four are a good example.

1) Immanuel Velikovsky showed many of the flaws of the conventional chronology for all to see and there are few who disagree. However his methodology and conclusions have been justly criticized and the baby was thrown out with the bath water so-to-speak. Because he wished to greatly reduce the time period for Egyptian history he came up with the theory of mirror image rulers. He concluded that in fact there were not 31 dynasties in Egypt but that a number consisted of Pharaohs who were identical to the Pharaohs in other dynasties. Another contemporary writer, Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn of Bremen University takes this methodology even further reducing the time period of ancient history by millennia instead of centuries. Heinsohn amazingly contends that Hammurabi the great Babylonian law giver is in fact Darius I of the Persian period!!!!

I am quoting from Velikovsky's "Peoples of the Sea" pp.215-233.

  1. Similar criticism was made by Donovon Courville in his 2 volume work "The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications". Courville, a great friend who in fact gave me his library when he could no longer work due to failing eye-sight, made very many important contributions to the field of chronology but because he was not an academic but rather a devout Christian who looked to confirm the Biblical account, was just ignored totally by academia. I quote from his work which is must reading for anyone interested in chronology for no other reason than his masterful conclusion that the Exodus took place at the end of the Early Bronze Age. {I had arranged for the whole stock of his books to be taken over by Martin Luckerman who edited the journal "Catastrophism and Ancient History. " If anyone knows his whereabouts, please have him call me.} The major flaw to be found in his work was his conclusion that the 12th and 6th dynasties were contemporaneous. This is not as far fetched as it sounds because both the Old and Middle Kingdoms came to an end in surprisingly similar ways and there is very good reason to identify the Pharaoh of the exodus to either a King of the Sixth or the Thirteenth dynasty. We shall see why when we do a series of lectures identifying the real Pharaoh. One single inscription in the Egyptian records squelched that theory.

    I quote from pages 48-89 in his controversial work.

  2. The third quote is from Peter James' "Centuries of Darkness". Peter was the first to come out in print supporting my identification of Shishak with Ramesses III after years of collaboration with David Rohl and their joint opting for Ramesses II as their initial choice. Rohl as we shall see never changed his mind, James changed his presumably after reading my letters and my published work although he never cited that in his book. He has since apologized. I take my quote from pp 225-229. His book is essential reading for his general critiques of other areas in ancient history including the Greeks and the Hittites.
  3. David Rohl wrote the beautiful book "Pharaohs and Kings, A Biblical Quest " a must read, from which a most interesting documentary was made with Bob Bianchi a professional Egyptologist formerly of the Brooklyn Museum. The great scholar Kitchen dismisses Bianchi and his conclusions tersely by saying he was not a chronologist but only an art historian as if truth was inextricably connected to profession.

For many years Rohl has wanted to find King David in the Amarna letters. He could not, the nearest he came was his identification of King Saul with someone termed "The Lion". Ignoring the fact that a Benjaminite would never be called a Lion, that identification forced him to continue with his identification of Shishak with Ramesses II even though his book keeps pointing to my conclusion, Shishak was Ramesses III. He can't and won't move however much evidence is presented to disprove his conclusion.

However his critiques of the present chronology are telling and I quote from pages 128-134.

Vision Video Associate

Vision Video Associate

Send your comments or suggestions to Michael S. Sanders
© 1999 - 2009 Michael S. Sanders.  All Rights Reserved.