Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Dear Peter,

While I have not read Rohl and cannot comment directly on his work, I differ
with your basic assumption. The next fixt date, in which a biblical event is
clearly mentioned in a dated source, is the invasion of Israel by
Tiglath-pilesser III in 733. Working back from there, using biblical
evidence only, would NOT get us to 926 for 1 Kings 6:1

Yigal


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
To: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
Cc: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] 1450 BCE Exodus ? 'Apiru = Hebrews ?


> On 24/07/2004 21:40, Yigal Levin wrote:
>
> >Please remember, that the dates given below are all based on the
assumption
> >that Shishak, who invaded Judah in Rehoboam's 5th year, is the same as
> >Sheshonq I, who invaded "Retenu" in c. 925 B.C.E.  I personally do not
doubt
> >the equation, but this just shows that this whole dating scheme is not
> >purely "biblical" - it is based on modern scholarly research, both of the
> >Bible and of Egyptian chronology. So the date of 1446 for the Exodus is
no
> >more "Biblical" than any other.
> >
> >
>
> Actually, what depends on this questionable synchronism is not the
> Israelite dates but the Egyptian ones. The Israelite dates, back to
> Solomon at least, can be reconstructed from the reign lengths given in
> Kings and Chronicles, and the known dates of Nebuchadnezzar. The main
> evidence for the date of the Egyptian Sheshonq I is based on his
> supposed synchronism with Rehoboam. If this synchronism is abandoned,
> the absolute dates of biblical events are unchanged. But what does then
> become variable are the Egyptian dates.
>
> For example, David Rohl (in "From Eden to Exile") dates the Exodus to
> 1447 BCE, a date based primarily on the same biblical evidence and
> arguments that Walter has given and just one year different from
> Walter's date (although Rohl is not a conservative Christian). But Rohl
> puts this in the reign of Pharaoh Djedneferre Dudimose of the 13th
> dynasty - in the Second Intermediate Period and conventionally dated
> just before 1600 BCE. Rohl is able to do this because he radically
> redates Egyptian, but not Israelite, history. He compresses the Third
> Intermediate Period, and identifies the biblical Shishak with Rameses
> II, and the biblical Saul with the Amarna letters' Labayu. This redating
> is of course too radical for some, but I mention it just to explain that
> abandoning the Shishak/Sheshonq identification does not imply adjusting
> the absolute dates of biblical events.
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
>
>