Conform Egyptology to match Biblical records
So what can we make of this contradiction of historical timeframes? First we must ask the question: are the same standards of historicity being applied to the Bible and to Egyptology equally? The tendency is to apply stricter standards to what we have already decided to be wrong. This first reconciliation will focus on re-evaluating Egyptology data to match the Biblical apparent meaning.
There are some fundamental considerations of ancient Egyptology (as representative of other ancient cultures) that show that we ought not place our current knowledge of the data as absolute. We simply do not have the kind of data we need to prove absolute dates. Some will certainly interpret the data absolutely, but do so having already decided on an absolute time. (note a summary of Ancient Dating)
We must first recognize that neither Manetho nor any archeological find provide absolute dates. They only provide relational context. It is our modern theories that place the data into our absolute dating system. The first attempt has been the Sothic Cycle. This theory dates Manetho’s king lists based upon an astrological year called the Sothis. The theory is that Egyptians used this year as a fixed time from which to date events. Two legitimate problems exist with this dating method: sources disagree when the Sothis year was, and we have no evidence that Egypt used the Sothis year to date events. That ancient Egypt used the Sothis year is just a theory that became popular when Egyptology was a hot topic. Should they have used it, we must then choose a Sothis year. Scholars will assume the Sothis year and dating method to match the timeframe they believe works best. In the absense of the Sothis dating method, Egyptologists try to create new dating systems that match this general timeframe. I will not criticize the tedious efforts to date ancient Egypt, but we must be careful not to accept as fact what is actually just a theory.
Should a true starting point be validated, there is a second problem: our records of all lists are incomplete. For most written lists we rely on several key historians. With each historian is a different version of the work. If the lists conflict we have no way of knowing which list is original. When we try to consult all works and partial data, we must pick and choose which information is valid and which does not match. We have only educated guesses where and if lists overlap or meet. As with any investigation, we tend to match data and set aside others as it benefits our chosen result. Again, historians do the best they can, and probably do well, but we must take it for what it’s worth.
Should the traditional framework be validated there is another problem. We cannot be sure we are interpreting the data the way the original writers intended. When most historians look at lists of rulers, they understand them as consecutive. As studies within the chronology of Jewish kings proves, sometimes rulers overlap. Whether they overlap as father and son, king and prince, or rivals, not all lists of kings with reignal years can be read consecutively. We cannot assume that the numbers of reignal years in these lists can be added together. We also cannot know the context of the writing. I could pick up Tolkein’s appendices in a thousand years and not realize it’s nature. I am not suggesting all ancient data is worthless or fictional, but without context, data is difficult if not impossible to use.
If we come to an understanding of how to read the numbers, there is a fourth problem. We assume that these lists are historically accurate. Manetho himself was commissioned by Pharaoh to this task. Other historical data is also most likely recorded by the order of the rulers. We don’t know if this is something they did to the best of their abilities or just to keep their life and paycheck. We have to know whether we are dealing with the modern equivelant to a published encyclopedia or an un-peer reviewed wikipedia. We have no sources for our sources, and no easy way to counter-check our interpretation of the lists. It would be like relying on a modern clergyman (Manetho was a priest) to document every ruler of Palestine back to the time of Hezekiah (covering 2500 years) or a modern preacher being asked to document every major ruler in western civilization going back to the founding of Rome. These ancient authors would have had to interpret their sources with the same human calculations and limitations that we have for their data. History can be accurate and understandable with the proper context in mind. Ultimately we must admit that ancient secular dates, though historically possible, are not historically verified.
Matching Egyptian historical data to the traditional meaning of Biblical data is not difficult. Historically, 500 years is not that much to condense in this context. Validating historical persons is easy compared to establishing western dates to place them in. Once we are willing to admit fluid Egyptian dates, we see no need for absolute contradiction with Biblical data. Historical reconstruction can give us accurate information. But we must realize that any historical data is subject to interpretation. If we try to fit Historical data into predetermined limits of our version of history, we cannot hope to find truth. Egyptology can show many accurate things, but a western dating system is not one of its purposes.