Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

I don't dispute Thiele (though I disagree on some details). What I'm saying
is that the reason that Thiele and other had to postulate co-regencies,
differing ascension-year formulae and the like is because they HAD to MAKE
the biblical data fit the extra-biblical dates. They had to make all of the
kings from Rehoboam (year 5) to Hezekiah (or Ahaz) fit between Shishak (925)
and Tiglath-Pileser (733), and then again Sennacherib (701), Necho (609) and
Nebuchadnezzar (586/7). Had they disregarded Shishak at the "top" end, they
could have used the biblical regency-dates without any emendation, or
explanation. Now I don't dispute any of this: I'm just showing how much of
our "biblical" chronology is based on the equation of Shishak=Sheshonq I.

Yigal

And BTW: Please let's not nit-pick about 924, 925, 926 etc. Almost all of
the dates might be off by a year or two.


From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
> 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/
>
>
>
>