From Eden to Exile: The Five-Thousand-Year History of the People of the Bible

Recently I wrote a review of Peter Enns' book "The Evolution of Adam" in which I made a brief reference to David Rohl's "From Eden to Exile: The 5000 Year History of the People of the Bible." Several friends who read the review emailed me, curious about Rohl's book and encouraging me to follow up on Enns' book with a somewhat detailed review of From Eden to Exile. Hence...this review.From Eden to Exile is Rohl's own "follow-up" to his previous book "Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest." It's important here that I inform the reader of the following: (1) Pharaohs and Kings (in my view) is a far more compelling book than From Eden to Exile; and (2) I would strongly recommend that readers unfamiliar with Rohl read Pharaohs and Kings, prior to reading From Eden to Exile. With these thoughts in mind (and before commenting on Eden to Exile), I believe it will prove worthwhile to focus briefly on Rohl's Pharaohs and Kings prior to moving on to his second book - the two being closely related in terms of subject matter.First, it needs to be stated here at the outset that Rohl (unfortunately) has not received much in the way of either praise and/or encouragment from his fellow Egyptologists, most of whom see him as a sort of "reckless intruder" into the discipline, presenting arguments for a revised chronology (what Rohl refers to as "the New Chronology") that his critics appear to regard as little more than fanciful speculation. This is most unfortunate. Rohl's views are fully deserving of critical assessment; however, the casual (sometimes contemptuous) manner with which his views have been almost entirely dismissed hardly constitutes the "finest hour" in the discipline of ancient Egyptian studies - and this would include the oftentimes quite dismissive attitude of Kenneth A. Kitchen, an Egyptologist and conservative Christian who has written his own book on the subject:"On the Reliability of the Old Testament," Eerdmans, 2003.I clearly am no scholar on the history of ancient Egypt. On the other hand, I have been reading on the subject extensively now for more than 40 years - and this out of sheer love for the subject as opposed to academic profession. And one thing I have learned throughout this reading process is that ancient Egyptian chronology is - for a certainty - in some degree of chaos. (It's not all that difficult to locate comments to this effect from Egyptologists themselves). The standard reference guide for the chronology of ancient Egypt is based foundationally on a chronological history of the ancient pharaohs that dates all the way back to the writings of an Egyptian priest named Manetho, whose written account dates to the third century BC - not exactly what we normally consider "the latest available evidence." Furthermore, Manetho's account itself has not survived; what we do know of it is to be found in the writings of Josephus (first century AD), and the early church fathers Julius Africanus (third century AD) and Eusebius (fourth century AD). Indeed, Egyptian scholar (and conservative Christian) James K. Hoffmeier acknowledges as much in his recent book "Ancient Israel in Sinai" (Oxford, 2005) when he writes regarding Manetho's account: "It is widely acknowledged that names are garbled and that some of the dynasties are not sequential but contemporaneous, and that there are clearly legendary stories preserved... Nevertheless," he continues, "Manetho is taken seriously in historical studies."Indeed he is! Egyptologists have precious little more to go on from the ancient world other than Manetho's account. And yet it is somewhat astonishing to discover the extent to which Manetho's account has been (for the most part) dogmatized into a rigid system that appears to be unyielding. And it is against this rigid wall of Egyptological dogmatism that Rohl must butt his head. (Little wonder that he is not fondly regarded within the discipline). That being said, I would strongly caution all readers (and especially readers of the Old Testament, where a good deal of its chronology is tied directly to Manetho's modernized system) to regard this correlation - between OT chronology and Egyptian chronology - with some degree of appropriate caution. In fact, the very controversy over the date of the Exodus (13th century or 15th century) is related directly to the unbridled confusion surrounding ancient Egyptian chronology.As regards From Eden to Exile I would state the following: (1) Rohl's treatment of early Genesis (Adam to Abraham) is highly speculative and he appears to be connecting dots that were never intended to be contiguous; (2) his book takes on greater promise when he reaches the area of his own particular expertise: Joseph in Egypt. Rohl places Joseph firmly within the 12th dynasty, during the reign of pharaohs Senuseret III and Amenemhat III - and his arguments here (despite the standard protest from his fellow scholars) are highly compelling and fully deserving of something other than "we standard Egyptologists always know best!" (Quite frankly, I've reached the point where I believe a more positive - and more accurate! - understanding of ancient Egyptian chronology will have to await the work of younger scholars (and Rohl has plenty of them!) who are more willing to think outside the box by considering other possibilities. As so often happens, we must simply wait for the 'old guard' to retire so that younger scholars - with fresh ideas and a willingness to engage new evidence - can take their place.) And, finally (3); although much of From Eden to Exile is written in a style reminiscent of historical novels, this should not (in and of itself) cause the reader to think that all we have here is manufactured storyline. On the contrary (certainly beginning with Joseph), Rohl weaves his factual history into the unfolding story in such a way as to make the history not only real but filled with life and event. Furthermore, Rohl fully acknowledges in his Introduction that he will be telling a narrative story as he seeks to "fill in the gaps" where hard evidence from ancient historical sources is plain and simply unavailable. And because Rohl distances himself from any particular religious affiliation it means that both evangelicals and fundamentalists should be able to read his account to great profit, without becoming unduly disturbed by some of his conclusions (e.g., the first five chapters). Indeed, his astonishing defense of the historical integrity of the biblical account displays enormous objectivity, far surpassing (in many ways) various books on the subject that have been produced by Christian publishers throughout the past 25 years.I would like to conclude my comments here by strongly urging all evangelical OT scholars to thoroughly familiarize themselves with Rohl's writings - Pharaohs and Kings in particular. Despite his critics this book is entirely deserving of serious reflection. His defense of a 15th century date for the Exodus is (in my view...and the view of many others) highly compelling and by no means easy to dismiss. (I fully understand that most evangelical scholars opt for the later date of 1250 BC during the reign of Rameses II). One continues to wonder, however, why the reference to Rameses in Genesis 47:11 is so easily regarded as an anachronism while Exodus 1:11 somehow places one firmly within the reign of Rameses II. Or why the clear reference to 480 years in 1 Kings 6:1 is so easily dismissed as most likely merely symbolic as opposed to actual - this despite the additional support for a literal understanding of these years that one gets from Joshua 11:26. But then we already know why: standard Egyptian chronology places Rameses II in the mid-thirteenth century BC, all of which "harmonizes" so well with Exodus 1:11. Thus, ipso facto, the Exodus occurred @ 1250 BC. I find myself far more persuaded by Rohl's account of the Hyksos invasion of Egypt (very likely the Asiatic Amalakites of Exodus 17) following upon the Exodus, when Egypt was almost disemboweled and severely weakened by a God named Yahweh, then any other account of the Hyksos invasion I have ever read from any standard Egyptian historian. (By the way: a quick perusal of ten books in my own library on ancient Egypt displays an enormous amount of diversity and subjective opinion, a rather clear indication that (voices to the contrary) there is precious little overall harmony and understanding amongst the scholars themselves when dealing with numerous aspects of ancient Egypt and its pharaohs.)Perhaps all of Rohl's conclusions are entirely bogus. Nonetheless, the massive amount of information he offers the reader for serious consideration needs to be offset by responsible Egyptian historians who can demonstrate (clearly and persuasively) the error of his ways, and do so with strong and powerful evidence that will illustrate the point. (Ad hominen arguments are worthless as a retort.) I have yet to see such a detailed book (with good, solid evidence as opposed to preferred dogmatism) written in response to the growing body of historical evidence that Rohl and his staff of young investigators are busy compiling. This fact alone only raises more unsettling questions regarding the overall integrity of an Egyptian chronology that rests almost entirely and uncritically on a now lost document that dates back to several centuries before Christ.Rohl, via his own admission, is clearly outside the Christian faith...or any other faith. However, in terms of defending the historical integrity of scripture, he may well be the best friend any believer ever had. All the more, therefore, is the pity that OT scholars either have chosen to ignore him entirely...or (the more likely alternative) have never even heard of him.Hopefully...this will change in the very near future.  Pharaohs and Kings

I have no problem with people arguing over dates of incidences occurring in the bible but I do have a problem when suddenly when people such as David Rohl, I will refer too as skeptics, doubt the bible is telling us the whole or complete truth, and that only thru the miraculous and profound wisdom of chronological revisionists like Rohl will our Bible, which they don't really conceive as being anything but myth with a taint of truth be somewhat revealed to us in all its gloryLately he has also claimed to have found the original garden of Egypt amongst other finding and claims that when Moses died he was buried in Baal Peor wherein centuries later Jeremiah the prophet hid the ark of the covenant next to t bones of the man who had the closest association with this item.Well David Rohl, I have dont know why you havent gone on to Baal Peor and discovered the Ark as you did the Garden of Eden and astounded the world with one of the greatest discoveries possible. By the way, did you see the Angel with the flaming sword guarding the way to the tree of life? What? You pick and choose what you believe. Put up a photo of that tree if you can. Though most Bible believers think that the Garden along with the rivers described where washed off the map during the flood.I believe the Bible to be what it says. Saul had nothing to do with the Egyptians under the name Labaya. He was a man grabbed from amongst a small tribe and then forced to learn the King business. Rohl gives Saul too much credit for what the Bible presents as a Kings who was on the brink of madness when the Oracles in this case the prophet Samuel, predicted his family's loss of the Kingship and his and his sones eventual deaths. Where he pulls deals with the Pharaohs I dont see it happening except in Rohls mind. The bible has no qualms about mentioning accounts recounted in other histories. Shishak mentions how he has Hezekiah hold up like a bird in a cage. The Anti-Prophet Balaams name has been discovered describing him as a great wizard and sorcerer.Rohl has Saul in the role of a conquering General that totally is at odds with the Biblical perception one gets of Saul. People don't need someone who doesn't find the bible a reliable book to find a way to make it reliable, it either is or isn't. The Essene version of Saul's life and death does not differ. Josephus does in Antiquities does not diverge from the traditional account of his reign. Only in David Rohls attempts to harmonize rebellious writings he doesn't put stock in does King Saul become an Attila the Hun type Character swooping down as Labaya, in league with the Egptian Pharoash and coming to a similar fate as Saul the Benjaminite. Thanks but I would not want to be treated by a doctor who feels he needs to treat his patients based on his revised understanding of the laws of medicine and I feel likewise on Rohls rewrite of biblical history.I like the old days, when people thought the Bible as nothing more then myth and fairy tale and bible believers a bunch of whackos who were out of touch with reality. Now that they see their is money to be made, they oblige us believers by saying that the bible is a skeleton of tales that are recorded out of whack and incorrent names and times and place and so with their new Chronology they will set everything right. If you research Rohl you can see where his analysis and comparisons of two distinct people is so off its a wonder even a layman couldnt spot it. Rohl never mentions the madness of King Labayu nor his counselor prophet Samuel even under a different name. Thats already two strikes. Sauls madness was an important part of his slow deterioration as was his apparent abandonment by the man who anointed him.

Well written book about a very interesting subject. Author is basically restructuring the traditionally accepted royal dynasty time periods of the Egyptian Pharaohs. I do accept that the traditional ancient time spans are mostly not accurate. This inaccuracy causes problems when trying to date other cultures of the same periods. The prime example is the biblical history of the Hebrews. When adjusting the Egyptian historical writings to around 200 years later you then do see references to accounts of a people who might have been the ancient Hebrews. It is interesting that we accept Egyptian history, as written in stone, but not the Hebrew written history. This author, and others, are disputing this accepted dating of Egyptian royal dynastic rule. The author tells a purely historical biblical history leaving religious commentary out of it. I don't agree with all his story but a great part of it is very possible. The bible is a religious and historical writing but it is possible to separate the two. The possibility of this new time frame being correct would change present day archaeology dramatically and would likely confirm much of secular biblical history.Ancient history of a particular culture must be correct in order to say if another culture existed at the same time. Right now Egyptian dating is being used to judge as to whether the biblical history is true. This of course is a very dubious yard stick. Who says ancient Egyptian writings are 100% true? Many have been found to be for political & religious purposes and not necessarily true. This book is an eye opener and puts a big ? mark about current historical dating and what is true and false about ancient Israel !

Interesting read but it's a pity that Mr Rohl accepts what he wants to accept to fit his hypotheses.When he comes to the Bibles' chronology he shortens the times given to suit his theory eg. The length of time of Israel's slavery in Egypt. Either the Bible is correct, if so then the hypotheses need some more work, after all archaeology may prove an event happened but our time calculations can be in error. If the Bible is in error then one would have to delegate it to the realm of myth. There's too much internal evidence both historically provable and too much practical life benefiting wisdom, if applied, for it to be a mythical writing. Other than that it's great to see some scholars trying to harmonise secular with biblical events and timing.

Brilliant book up

Excellent !!