Creation History

The Associates for Biblical Research (ABR) is a group of Christian archaeologists founded by the late Dr. David Livingston in 1969, who was later joined by Dr. Bryant Wood in 1986. The current flag bearers for ABR doing most of the heavy lifting in terms of publications include Douglas Petrovich, Rodger Young, and Henry Smith.

While coming from the perspective of believing in biblical inerrancy, rejecting evolution, and upholding a global flood, ABR has approached the Biblical Chronology Problem by selectively embracing the Septuagint (LXX) chronogeneologies, while using MT arguments for other parts of the chronology. Consequently, ABR has taken a hard-line position that the chronogeneologies in the Septuagint are the original numbers of Scripture, as explained in their Statement on Near Eastern Chronology, but they are not willing to fully commit to the LXX as the most accurate manuscript of the Old Testament.

"ABR is not presently prepared to advocate all of the numbers of the Masoretic Text as original to Genesis 5 and 11 unless further research leads to such a conclusion... Based on preliminary investigations, an acceptance of the matching SP/LXX begetting ages for each patriarch as the original text of Genesis 11 would date the Flood around 3300 BC. The begetting age for each patriarch is the key number for calculating the chronology of this period. This is probably the outer possible date of the Flood. Any archaeological/historical dates that go back beyond this time range would be considered incorrect and subject to emendation and correction."

It should be stressed that the authors of this Creation History website recognize the ABR associates as creedally orthodox fellow Christians, who are not advocating theistic evolution, gap theory, or other positions that directly contradict the Scriptures.  The points of contention between us are a collegial debate over the identification of the original manuscript tradition of the Scriptures, the internal chronology preserved in those manuscripts, and the external chronology of the Ancient Near East from the Genesis Flood to the Advent of Christ.  These points of debate overflow into the interpretation of some archaeological sites such as Shiloh, Gezer, and Jericho which have been excavated by ABR staff.  While we may express criticisms of ABR's arguments on this website, our purpose is as iron sharpening iron, not to denigrate the work of our brothers.

Since ABR seems to endorse the Septuagint as preserving the original numbers in the chronogeneology, it should be pointed out that the general chronology expressed in the Septuagint was expounded by Josephus as follows:

* Divided Kingdom: 394 years

* Long Judges: 518 years from the Exodus to the Temple foundation

* Short Sojourn: 215 years from Jacob's entry into Egypt until the Exodus

* Long Chronogeneologies: adding 100 years to each post-flood generation before siring their first child, as well as adding a second Cainan in some manuscripts.

While preferring the LXX chronogeneologies, ABR's official chronology is actually the opposite of the LXX on three of the four controversial eras:

"1. We believe that the length of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt is 430 years (the so-called Long Sojourn view) going back from the Exodus (1446 BC) to Jacob’s arrival in Egypt (1876 BC). This chronological view seems to have the best exegetical and textual support. We believe the Short-Sojourn view disrupts many of the excellent synchronisms between archaeology and the Bible from the birth of Abraham through the time of Joshua."

"2. We believe that the date for the Exodus from Egypt is 1446 BC and the conquest of Canaan began in 1406 BC. These dates are based on the internal chronology of the Bible and are affirmed by a wealth of data in the archaeological and historical record. These dates are strongly affirmed by the evidence found in our own excavations in Israel at Khirbet el-Maqatir (Joshua’s Ai), and our extensive research on the destruction of the cities of Jericho and Hazor during the period of the Conquest. Archaeological evidence for the occupation and subsequent destruction of these three Canaanite/Amorite cities agrees with the biblical text and thereby confirms the accuracy of conventional Egyptian/ANE chronology from this period. Radically revising Egyptian chronology destroys such important synchronisms between the Bible and the archaeological record."

"3. Based on the exhaustive research of ABR Associate Rodger C. Young and the ABR staff generally, we believe the period of the Divided Kingdom was 345 years. The construction of Solomon’s Temple began in 967 BC and Solomon died in 931 BC. These dates are verified through an examination of over 120 pieces of data found in the relevant biblical texts, and are affirmed in hundreds of ways in the archaeological and historical record. We acknowledge Archbishop Ussher's 17th century work in this area, but believe that subsequent scholarship has refined and brought correction to Ussher’s Divided Kingdom chronology."

As will be expounded in greater detail in several papers and articles on this site, it appears to us that ABR staff have selectively chosen LXX or MT arguments based on some unstated external chronology requirements, rather than choosing which manuscript tradition is the authentic Bible and then arguing consistently from that tradition.

For example, the LXX text for Exodus 12:40 states that the sojourn of the children of Israel "in Egypt and Canaan" was 430 years, thereby including Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the sojourn.  Thus the LXX text itself commits to a short sojourn.  However, Petrovich argues from the MT Hebrew that the original text only states "Egypt" not "Egypt and Canaan." By strictly adhering to the MT on this passage, Petrovich is able to sidestep the LXX interpretation, and keep his preferred Long Sojourn in Egypt because it is required by his Egyptian chronology.

Further inquiry into the chronology of ABR reveals that their Biblical chronology is pinned to three extra-biblical synchronisms, and thus they have chosen the Long Sojourn in Egypt, Short Judges, and Short Divided Kingdom in order to match those external synchronisms.  In all three of their choices, they choose the opposite of the LXX. This suggests they have only chosen the LXX chronogeneologies because they are convenient to their chronology of the Ancient Near East, not because they believe the LXX is the most faithful translation of the original manuscripts of Scripture.

ABR's Three Chronology Lynchpins

1. Petrovich anchors his Egyptian chronology on the Lahun Papyrus which gives a Sirius rising date, assumed to be in the reign of Senusret III.

"The correct synchronism for the entrance into Egypt in 1876 BC is two full years into the reign of Sesostris III (Petrovich 2016b, 234) based on the datable astronomical event recorded on Berlin Museum Papyrus 10012 from Lahun and the preference for the high chronology view (Parker 1976, 184; Ward 1992, 56–59; Huber 2012, 224)." -- Petrovich, "Determining the Precise Length of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt."

The Lahun Papyrus is a letter from the priest of the mortuary temple of a Senusret (could be I, II, or III) which predicts an Egyptian month and day for the rising of Sirius on the 17th day of the fourth month of the seventh year of an unknown king of Egypt.  Based on the city where the observation is assumed to have been made this could have occurred between 1876 and 1830, assuming it is a date using the Sothic Cycle calendar.  Egyptologists commonly assumed the seventh year was of King Senusret III.  Petrovich picks his Biblical chronology in order to have Jacob enter Egypt in the second year of Senusret III via the high chronology, in the year 1876 BC.   

In our view this is an extremely speculative synchronism on which to base Biblical chronology because we don't know which king was referenced, and we have strong evidence that Egypt was still using a 360-day calendar prior to the Hyksos invasion many years after the end of the 12th Dynasty.  In Manetho and the Book of Sothis, we find two different references to the adoption of the 365-day calendar in Egypt, one being in the reign of Salatis, the first Hyksos king, and the other being in the reign of an "Aseth" the last king listed before Ahmose I. Both of these references suggest the 365-day Sothic calendar was not adopted until well after the end of the 12th Dynasty.  Therefore interpreting the rising of Sirius according to the 365-day Sothic calendar prior to the adoption of that calendar certainly gives an erroneous result for the year.

Furthermore, Keenan has brought attention to the fact that a Nile-level text at the Dal Cataract dated to the 10th year of the same king, Senusret III, gives a sothic date some five centuries different from that of the Lahun Papyrus. This suggests that there were two different calendars in use in the reign of Senusret III, or that the Sothic Calendar was not being used then.

2. The Founding date of Carthage was 812 or 825 BC.  Rodger Young published a paper in which he justifies Edwin Thiele's chronology of the Divided Kingdom (adjusted by one year), based on Josephus giving a list of the kings of Tyre and their reigns from Hiram down to the time of Pygmalion.  Carthage was said to be founded in the 7th year of Pygmalion, and Pompius Trogus records that Carthage was founded 72 years before Rome, thus placing it in 825 BC.  The total number of years in the chronology from Hiram's 12th year to Pygmalion's 7th is given as 147 years, Young concludes that this confirms Thiele's date for Solomon's reign beginning in 971 BC, and the founding of the Temple in 967 BC.

Our view of this synchronism is that it is good and bad.  It is good because it would be an example of triangulation using data from the ancient chroniclers, which is the method that our Chronological Framework of Ancient History is built upon.  However, it is a bad example of good technique because Young picked the only one of half a dozen durations to the founding of Carthage that seemed to agree with Thiele's chronology. The other durations support dates as early as 890 and as late as 812 BC.  Thus the date of the founding of Carthage is nowhere near as certain as Young and Steinmann lead their audiences to believe.

The Romans destroyed Carthage so thoroughly that no king list or chronology table has survived, and we have four different dates for its founding given by the chroniclers.  We prefer to use dates to which there are multiple triangulated durations, such as the Fall of Troy in 1183 BC, for which there are over a dozen durations given by different chroniclers from different events.  The Bible alone contains five separate chronological data sets covering the period from Solomon to the fall of Samaria.  Therefore hanging the chronology of Solomon on the founding date of Carthage is a strange choice of a weakly attested date.  And as we will demonstrate in a future paper, Young's interpretation of Justin contradicts both Josephus and the well-triangulated date for the Fall of Troy.

3. The third synchronism on which Thiele built his Divided Kingdom chronology, which Young, Petrovich, and Steinmann all follow, is the identification of Ahab as the "Yaub Srilit" who was part of a coalition of 12 kings who fought against Shalmaneser III at the Battle of QarQar in that king's sixth year, 853 BC.  Despite several obvious problems with this synchronism, it has been universally accepted since first suggested in the 19th century.  There are three problems with this claim.

First, according to the chronology of the kings of Judah and Israel in the Bible, Ahab died 44 years earlier in the year 897 BC. (Jones, Chart 5)  Second, the name in the Assyrian inscription, Yaub Srilit, interpreted as Ahab of Israel, uses the wrong name for Israel.  The Assyrian name for Israel was Bit Khumry, not Srilit. 

Third, there is another much better synchronism with Shalmaneser III recorded in both the Bible and the Assyrian records that agrees with the Ussher-Jones chronology.  Shalmaneser III defeated Hazael of Damascus in 842, the same year that he received tribute from "Yau bit Khumry" which has been interpreted as Jehu son of Omri.  However, Yau could be short for any of the many Hebrew names that begin with the theophoric, Yah. The Bible records that Hazael died shortly after Jehoash, grandson of Jehu, came to the throne as pro-rex with his father Jehoaz. Therefore the king that paid tribute to Shalmaneser could have been either Jehoaz or Jehoash, as both were on the throne at the time.  As Hazael's death is documented by both the Bible and the Assyrian records as occurring within a year or two of 842 BC, it is impossible that Jehu could have still been alive at that date, unless we assume the sacred text is full of errors.

Fourth, Sargon II also recorded a battle against a "Yaub'di" at QarQar about 130 years later.  Sargon tells us this Yaub was a Hittite.  It seems likely that Yaub was a dynastic name for the kings of QarQar, similar to how Ben Hadad was a dynastic name used by the kings of Damascus, Jabin was a dynastic name for the kings of Hazor, and Tudkhalia was a dynastic name for the kings of Hattusa.  There is no concrete connection between Ahab and Yaub Srilit, while several facts argue strongly against them being the same person.

Commentary on ABR's Methodology

Our main objection to ABR's chronological hermeneutic is that they have chosen to synchronize their Bible chronology to three of the weakest external synchronisms available for the period in question.  Young's date for the founding of Carthage hangs from the single thread of Pompius Trogus, in contradiction to the other sources.  The identification of Ahab as Yaub Srilit of QarQar is clearly wrong, and contradicts other Assyrian records, as shown by the correct synchronism with the death of Hazael.  The Sothic date for Senusret III is also verifiably false because we have actual durations to an event in the reign of Senusret III given by the Greek chroniclers, obtained from the priests of Egypt.  That event, the founding of an Egyptian astronomical college on the Euphrates River by Sesostris III, occured in the year 1577 BC.

ABR claims the LXX chronogeneology is the correct representation of the original Hebrew numbers, but contradicts the LXX on the length of the Sojourn in Egypt, the length of the Judges, and the length of the Divided Kingdom.  The haphazard approach to the LXX reveals Petrovich's Biblical chronology to be based on the eisegesis of his external synchronisms into the Bible, not sound exegesis of the Masoretic Text. We conclude that despite looking good at first glance, the ABR chronology promoted by Young and Petrovich is a house built upon sand, even though we may admire their work in other areas.

ABR's Epistemology

In their Statement on Near Eastern Chronology, ABR makes an interesting statement (emphasis in the original):

5. The radical revision of Egyptian chronology demands that the chronologies of many other civilizations across the ANE also be rewritten. Egypt had countless dealings with numerous other nation-states, such as the Hittites, the Sea Peoples (Philistines), the Canaanites, the Amorites, Mesopotamia, Cyprus, Nubia, and of course, Israel. Hundreds of synchronisms from the archaeological record during the post 2000 BC era already exist, some of which are cited on this website in a variety of articles. These synchronizations agree with the biblical dates and cultural setting. Radical revisionism serves to destroy these manifold correlations, undermining their already strong and highly useful apologetic value.

6. We believe that those who advocate such reconstructions have been and will continue to be woefully unsuccessful at resolving the thousands of new synchronization problems that the wholesale disruption of Egyptian chronology creates, even if one were to assume that said advocates have the requisite expertise to revise the histories of all of the applicable and interrelated civilizations.

No single person could possibly have a grasp of all these thousands of implications or the requisite knowledge required to revise the entire chronology of the ANE.

The bolded statement is a statement of epistemology - their theory of the nature and limits of human knowledge.  However, this statement has some implications that the person who wrote it seems to have missed.

First, if no single person could possibly have sufficient knowledge to revise the chronology of the Ancient Near East, then the converse is also true.  No single person could possibly grasp the implications and requisite knowledge to confirm the accepted chronology of the Ancient Near East to be true and accurate.

But, ABR obviously does claim that the existing chronology of the ANE is correct.  Therefore they have contradicted their statement that nobody could know enough to revise the chronology of the ancient world. We must conclude that the claim that nobody can know enough to revise the chronology of the ANE is a canard that they do not really believe.

Second, if we accept their statement to be true, then only God can possibly know enough to give a true chronology of the ancient world.  That should turn us back to the Bible as the original source of true chronology, rather than bending the chronology of the Bible, as Thiele and Petrovich do, to fit the accepted chronology of the Ancient Near East.

Therefore, ABR has an epistemology problem.  They claim nobody can know enough to revise the chronology. Yet, they also very obviously rely on the external chronology of the Ancient Near East to dictate the correct interpretation of the chronological passages of the Bible.  Rather than requiring the external chronology of the Near East to submit to the authority of Scripture, they allow the fallible external history of Egypt and Assyria to dictate truths that the Bible must bow down to.

We also would like to clarify that we are not using Anstey's argument here, of pagans versus the Bible.  In the periods of history where the sacred text gives us dates in terms of external kingdoms, then we must use the chronology of those kingdoms in order to build a Biblical chronology.   From the Jewish Captivity until the end of the New Testament, the Bible gives dates in terms of the year of the king of the ruling empire. Therefore, we must use the king lists and chronologies of Babylon, Persia, Seleucid Asia, and the Roman Empire in order to build a complete Old Testament chronology.

Our objection is that ABR is allowing external chronology of the kingdoms of the Ancient Near East to over-ride the clear internal chronology of Scripture for the eras in which the Bible gives dates in terms of the kings of Israel and Judah, and the major events such as the Conquest, Exodus, and Noah's Flood.

While we respect Associates for Biblical Research as Christian scholars, their Statement on Near Eastern Chronology betrays a corrupt epistemology that we believe has led them into error in interpreting both the scriptural text and the external data available from archaeology.

As was the case with Copernicus and Galileo, new discoveries will never change the mind of most established academics, because they are so heavily invested in their paradigm.  We have to press forward with new research and new models that more accurately explain the data, and convince the next generation of scholars.  That is how learning progresses in the world we live in.