I introduced in my two past articles that I’ve moved Egyptian lines 1 through 12 along the course of events prior by 161 years and I have moved Egyptian administrations 13 through 20 prior by 124 years. These changes are in a similar course along the timetable (prior) and just have a distinction of 37 years (161 years contrasted with 124 years). This distinction in the movements is moderately unimportant and can be represented by the vulnerability in the dates of rules of lines 13-17 (students of history recognize that the dating of traditions 13-17 is troublesome since many reigns in this period might agree). Subsequently, I basically just can’t help contradicting the dating of the Conventional Egyptian Chronology from lines 1 through 20 as in the whole timetable for those traditions ought to be moved before on schedule in the scope of 124-161 years.
Lines 21 through 26 are an alternate matter. Since I have moved these lines later on schedule by 181 years and lines 13-20 prior by something like 124 years there should be a hole in the Egyptian timetable some place from the rule of Ramesses III to the rule of Shishak of 305 years! This is an astounding outcome. Nobody in the scholarly local area has even proposed that an intermittence of the Egyptian lines might have happened. It has been expected that Egypt has generally been adequately strong to manage over itself and its neighbors yet it might just be that Egypt was helpless before different intruders from the finish of the twentieth line to the start of the 21st administration for around 300 years.
So what occurred in Egypt for quite a long time?
The topic of “what has been going on with the 300 years” can not be satisfactorily tended to until we break down Egypt’s situation as a country after the rule of Ramesses III. Since the Exodus of the Israelites happened during his rule and in the event that you trust the record of the Bible (which I surely do) Egypt probably been crushed. The ten torment that happened during this time would have harmed the Nile (blood in the Nile), devastated the food supply (beetles), presented plague and sickness on a public scale and killed numerous Eqyptians (Passover holy messenger of death). Presently consider the effect on their economy of a labor force of more than 2,000,000 Israelite slaves leaving their nation (see the book of Numbers for the number of inhabitants in the Israelites around then). fayum portraits Apparently the number of inhabitants in Egypt in that period ought to be substantially less than it is today so the effect of the Israelites on the economy would be a lot more noteworthy.
The sacred texts additionally express that the Israelites had the option to “plunder” the Egyptians on the grounds that the Egyptian residents related to their situation and gave them “disappearing” gifts of gold and gems. Presently on top of all of this, as I referenced prior, the Egyptian armed force was basically annihilated when they were suffocated in the Red Sea. So we should recap, Egypt is wrecked by absence of water, sickness, epidemic and a significant part of the populace has kicked the bucket; its economy is seriously debilitated by a to a great extent diminished labor force; it has no military. How is it that anyone could accept this country endure such conditions? Neither do I accept Egypt had the option to make due.
I don’t completely accept that Egypt’s foes were taking an occasion while this was happening all things considered. Libya and the Sea Peoples were the last outsiders that antiquarians have proof of leading conflict with Egypt in the twentieth administration. Ramesses III had the option to repel both these intruders. Notwithstanding, after the Exodus I accept there was another intruder that became conspicuous, Egypt’s previous slave country, Israel. Consider what the sacred texts say about Israel’s new southern line after they attack Canaan (Numbers 33:5): “And the line will abandon Azmon to the Brook of Egypt, and its breaking point will be at the ocean”. Assuming you look into “Creek” in the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance you will track down that this word can imply “waterway valley” which is the understanding I favor. I don’t completely accept that this section implies that the line of Israel began at the Nile River. I accept this is clarified in Joshua 15:47 where the “Stream of Egypt” gives off an impression of being near the city Gaza with regards to the refrain.
There is a lot of distance among Gaza and the Nile, but if you somehow happened to take a gander at a topological guide of the area you would see that the uneven bumpy geology of Israel advances to the much lower level Nile River Valley in the overall area of Gaza. Antiquarians report that Ramesses VI willfully frees his powers once again from Canaan during his rule. As per The Fourth Day: Why The Bible is Historically Accurate Chronology the Israelites crossed the Jordan River to start their triumph of Canaan from the get-go in the rule of Ramesses VII. Accepting there exists just a little blunder in the Conventional Egyptian Chronology, I accept the Israelites really frightened Ramesses VI out of Canaan back into Egypt soon after they entered Canaan. What is intriguing about this is the Bible never makes reference to Israel skirmishing Egypt. Archeologists have found proof that Ramesses VI pulled out his powers from Canaan. As a matter of fact Egypt is never referenced in the Bible from the book of Exodus till the rule of Solomon. It is very conceivable that Egypt saw the size of Israel’s military and withdrawn, along these lines it wasn’t kept in the Bible to make sense of why it. Egypt’s retreat is huge since Egypt frequently involved Canaan as a “cushion zone” to forestall other strong countries like the Hittites, the Babylonians and the Assyrians from attacking Egypt. Along these lines, not exclusively was Egypt militarily feeble it was additionally gotten between three impressive countries, Libya toward the west, Ethiopia toward the south (this incorporates present day Sudan) and Israel toward the east. I accept that for the following 300 years Egypt was stitched in with minimal opportunity to recuperate its previous magnificence.
The Dark Ages of the Eastern Mediterranean
Egyptologists have been obstinate that the 30 traditions of Egypt followed one behind the other with no hole in the course of events between these lords. Is there any recorded proof that upholds the possibility that Egypt didn’t have a Pharaoh from 1200 B.C. to 900 B.C.? Consider the way that essentially every country in the Eastern Mediterranean went through some dull age, some period without a record of its set of experiences during this time. Students of history guarantee that antiquated Greece went through a dull age from twelfth to the eighth century B.C. between the Mycenean and Archaic Greek civilizations. The Hittites seemed to have a dim age from the thirteenth to the tenth century B.C. Indeed, even the Assyrians seemed to have a dim age of a long time from 1000-900 B.C. So assuming this large number of adjoining countries of Egypt encountered a dull age period during this time for what reason shouldn’t Egypt?
Likewise consider that the Greeks implied a dull time of Egypt too. Greek folklore specifies a lord of Egypt, Proteus, who became ruler of Egypt after a period where Egypt didn’t have a ruler for five ages (Reference: Greek Mythology Link, creator Carlos Parada, If we accept an age was a time of 60 years then five ages would be 300 years; positively a chance. So who is Proteus lord of Egypt? As indicated by Greek folklore Proteus was lord of Egypt during the Trojan War when Paris, sovereign of Troy, arrived at the shores of Egypt with his hostage Helen. Clearly Paris had grabbed Helen, the sovereign of Sparta. This is the episode that ignited the Trojan War. Herodotus additionally specifies Proteus in his book The Histories as to his part in the Trojan War. Assuming Proteus is the lord of Egypt during the Trojan War and on the grounds that he is the ruler toward the finish of the long term time of quietness in Egyptian history then the Trojan War probably happened exceptionally close to 900 B.C. as per the Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate Chronology. Since it was the Mycenean Greeks that attacked Troy then it is truly conceivable there was a progressive change from the Mycenean to the Archaic Greek human advancement over a time of one hundred years (900-800 B.C.) This basically intends that there was no dim age in old Greece as has been so powerfully contended by Peter James in his book Centuries of Darkness.
So where is the addition point for this long term time of quiet in the Conventional Egyptian Chronology? Since this period happens some place on schedule between the twentieth and 21st traditions of antiquated Egypt then the primary ruler after this long term time of quiet should be in one of these administrations. Additionally the principal strong lord in Egypt in 300 years would likely make some declaration or order that would exhibit that Egypt by and by was in charge of its own predetermination.
I accept the period from Ramesses VI until Ramesses XI meets every one of the requirements of the missing 300 years. Little was recorded about Ramesses VII, VIII or IX. As indicated by Herodotus the following lord to succeed Proteus was a ruler named Rhampsinutus (numerous antiquarians accept this is the Greek delivering for a ruler named Ramesses). So which Ramesses was it? I accept he was Ramessses XI. Herodotus expresses that Rhampsinutus had a “immense fortune in silver” bigger than any lord of Egypt before him. The main two Pharoahs in Egypt’s set of experiences that had silver final resting places that have been found were Psusennes of the 21st line and Shoshenq I of the 23rd tradition. This is huge in light of the fact that I accept this is proof that Ramessess XI fits better as a ruler of the 21st administration instead of the twentieth tradition.
I recommend that Ramesses XI, very much like Rhampsinitus, gained his fortune in working with metals since history records that he raised two incredible sculptures at the site of the Temple of Vulcan, the lord of metal-working. Old Egypt was renowned for its gold mines not its silver mines. Silver was mined generally in Canaan and Mesopotamia. An immense silver fortune would show Ramesses XI had become wealthy in silver by exchanging different items to countries Canaan (presumably ponies). Students of history likewise have observed that Ramesses XI pronounced another checking of time