David Rohl

The New Chronology is an alternative chronology of the ancient Near East developed by English Egyptologist David Rohl and other researchers beginning with A Test of Time: The Bible - from Myth to History in 1995.

It contradicts mainstream Egyptology by proposing a major revision of the established Egyptian chronology, in particular by re-dating Egyptian kings of the Nineteenth through Twenty-fifth Dynasties, bringing forward conventional dating by up to 350 years.

Rohl asserts that the New Chronology allows him to identify some of the characters in the Hebrew Bible with people whose names appear in archaeological finds.

The New Chronology, one of several proposed radical revisions of the conventional chronology, has not been accepted in academic Egyptology, where the conventional chronology or small variations of it remains standard.

Amélie Kuhrt, head of Ancient Near Eastern History at University College London, in one of the standard reference works of the discipline, notes, "Many scholars feel sympathetic to the critique of weaknesses in the existing chronological framework [...], but most archaeologists and ancient historians are not at present convinced that the radical redatings proposed stand up to close examination."

Rohl's most vocal critic has been Kenneth Kitchen, one of the leading experts on biblical history and the author of the standard work on the conventional chronology of the Third Intermediate Period of Egypt, the period most directly affected by the New Chronology's redating of the Nineteenth to Twenty-fifth Dynasties.

David Rohl's published works A Test of Time (1995), Legend (1998), The Lost Testament (2002), and The Lords of Avaris (2007) set forth Rohl's theories for re-dating the major civilisations of the ancient world.

A Test of Time proposes a down-dating (bringing closer to the present), by several centuries, of the New Kingdom of Egypt, thus needing a major revision of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt.

Rohl asserts that this would let scholars identify some of the major events in the Hebrew Bible with events in the archaeological record and identify some of the well-known biblical characters with historical figures who appear in contemporary ancient texts.

Lowering the Egyptian dates also dramatically affects the dating of dependent chronologies, such as that currently used for the Greek Heroic Age of the Late Bronze Age, removing the Greek Dark Ages, and lowering the dates of the Trojan War to within two generations of a ninth-century-BC Homer and his most famous composition, the Iliad.

The New Chronology lowers the Egyptian dates (established within the traditional chronology) by up to 350 years at points before the universally accepted fixed date of 664 BC for the sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal.

For example, the New Chronology would redate the beginning of Egypt's 19th Dynasty from 1295 BC to 961 BC.

Before the 1995 publication of A Test of Time, Thomas L. Thompson, a theologian associated with Biblical Minimalism, had insisted that any attempt to write history based on a direct integration of biblical and extra-biblical sources was "not only dubious but wholly ludicrous".

Rohl had previously remarked in A Test of Time (1995) that he "did not originally set out to challenge our current understanding of the Old Testament narratives. This has come about simply because of the need to explore the ramifications of my TIP [Egyptian Third Intermediate Period] research. I have no religious axe to grind – I am simply an historian in search of some historical truth."

Rohl's redating is based on criticism of three of the four arguments which he considers are the original foundations of the conventional chronology for the Egyptian New Kingdom:

Thus, Rohl is of the opinion that none of these three foundations of the conventional Egyptian chronology are secure, and that the sacking of Thebes by the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal in 664 BC is the earliest fixed date in Egyptian history.

Rohl bases his revised chronology (the New Chronology) on his interpretation of numerous archeological finds and genealogical records from Egypt.

For example:

Most Egyptologists accept Shishaq as an alternative name for Shoshenq I. Rohl disputes that Shoshenq's military activity fits the biblical account of Shishaq on the grounds that the two kings' campaigns are completely different and Jerusalem does not appear in the Shoshenq inscription as a subjected town.

He also points out that Ramesses did campaign against Israel and that he had a short form of his formal name which was in use in Palestine.

That name was Sysw, whilst the early Hebrew alphabet did not distinguish between S and SH, so the biblical name may have originally been Sysq.

Rohl explained his view on the issue in The Lost Testament (2007): "Is the Old Testament history or myth? The only way to answer that question is to investigate the biblical stories using the archaeological evidence, combined with a study of the ancient texts of the civilisations which had a role to play in the Bible story. But this has to be done with an open mind. In my view the biblical text – just like any other ancient document – should be treated as a potentially reliable historical source until it can be demonstrated to be otherwise."

Rohl has also argued that the qoph ending may be a later misreading of the early sign for waw which in the 10th century was identical to the 7th century sign for qoph.

Thus 7th-century Sysq may have been a mistaken later reading of 10th-century Sysw.

The theory that Ramesses II (hypocoristicon Sysa), rather than Shoshenq I, should be identified with the biblical Shishak is not widely accepted.

Kevin Wilson agrees only partially with David Rohl.

Wilson accepts that there is a mismatch between the triumphal relief of Shoshenq I and the biblical description of King Shishak.

However, he does not think that this discrepancy gives sufficient reason for doubting the identification of Shoshenq I with King Shishak of the Bible.

Wilson writes about Shoshenq's inscription, "Contrary to previous studies, which have interpreted the relief as a celebration of his Palestine campaign, neither the triumphal relief nor any of its elements can be utilized as a source for historical data about that campaign. … the triumphal relief can unfortunately play no role in the reconstruction of Shoshenq’s campaign."

Wilson's view is not supported by Kenneth Kitchen who states: "That the great topographical list of Shoshenq I at Karnak is a document of the greatest possible value for the history and nature of his campaign against Judah and Israel is now clearly established beyond all dispute, thanks to the labours expended on that list by a series of scholars. However, the composition and interpretation of the list still require further examination and clarification".

Other leading scholars who have studied the campaign relief point out that it is indeed a unique list of subjected towns and not a copy of an earlier campaign by a more celebrated pharaoh.

This originality makes it far more likely that it is a true representation of cities and locations brought under Egyptian control by the military activities of Shoshenq I.

The implications of a radical down-dating of the conventional Egyptian chronology, such as that proposed by Rohl and other revisionists, are complex and wide-ranging.

The New Chronology affects the historical disciplines of Old Testament studies, Levantine archaeology, Aegean and Anatolian archaeology and Classical studies, and raises major issues concerning Mesopotamian chronology and its links with Egypt and Anatolia.

Redating the reign of Ramesses II to three centuries later than that given by the conventional chronology would reposition the date of the Battle of Kadesh and revise the linked chronology of Hittite history, and would need a revision of the chronology of Assyrian history before 911 BC. Given the dependence of Hittite chronology on Egyptian chronology, a lowering of Egyptian dates would result in a lowering of the end of the Hittite New Kingdom and a resulting reduction (or complete removal) of the Anatolian Dark Age.

During the Amarna period, a chronological synchronism between Egypt and Assyria is attested through the correspondence of Pharaoh Akhenaten and a King Ashuruballit.

In the conventional chronology, this Ashuruballit is identified with Ashur-uballit I of the early Middle Assyrian Empire, but the New Chronology has proposed the addition of an otherwise unknown King Ashuruballit "II" during the Middle Assyrian "dark age" as the author of the Amarna letters.

Given that the Ashuruballit I synchronism with Akhenaten has become the crucial link between Egyptian and Mesopotamian history in recent years, this issue is a key area of focus and dispute.

As explained above, the New Chronology rejects the identification of Shoshenq I with the biblical Shishaq, and instead offers Ramesses II (also known by his nickname "Sysa") as the real historical figure behind the Shishaq narrative.

Rohl identifies Labaya, a local ruler in Canaan whose activities are documented in the Amarna Letters, with Saul, and identifies David with Dadua ("Tadua"), also mentioned in Amarna Letter EA256.