Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 24/07/2004 23:30, Yigal Levin wrote:

> 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. ...

I suppose you refer to 2 Kings 15:29. This will do as an earlier 
alternative to Nebuchadnezzar. I don't know how secure the 
extra-biblical evidence is for Tiglath-Pileser's invasion date, but I 
won't dispute it. Nor does Rohl, by the way.

> ... Working back from there, using biblical
> evidence only, would NOT get us to 926 for 1 Kings 6:1
>  

I think it is generally agreed that the various biblical dates for the 
kings can be reconciled only by postulating co-regencies. Scholars like 
Thiele have worked on this, and seem to have agreed on dates between 925 
and 927 for Shishak's invasion - not for the foundation of the temple, 
which is more like 967 in this scheme. Hence the Exodus date of 480 
years before this. As far as I can tell the only evidence for this 
consensus dating is from the Bible; it doesn't come from an independent 
dating of Sheshonq because there isn't one.

You can disagree with Thiele and others' interpretation of the biblical 
data if you like, but it is fairly widely accepted as the best you can 
do with that evidence. I know there are alternative interpretations of 
the details, but they lead to only small differences in the total period 
of the divided monarchy.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/