Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 25/07/2004 06:25, Yigal Levin wrote:

> 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. ...

Is this true? As I understood it, the reason for all of these 
complications was to reconcile the different reign lengths given for 
kings of Judah and Israel in the books of Kings and Chronicles.

> ... 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.
>  

Well, this is not how I understood the situation. The dates from 
Tiglath-Pileser to Nebuchadnezzar may be independently attested, but I 
am almost certain that there is no good evidence outside the Bible to 
date Seshonq I's invasion anywhere near 925. Rohl's discussion suggests 
that Kenneth Kitchen has found some evidence to suggest this 925 date by 
adding up the known regnal years of the Pharaohs from Sheshonq I to 
Taharka, but that this evidence is very dubious and ignores the known 
phenomenon of parallel dynasties.

Indeed, Rohl's reconstruction of the rather limited extra-biblical 
evidence (having rejected the Shishak/Sheshonq link) dates Sheshonq's 
invasion to c. 800 BCE and identifies him with the "saviour" of Israel 
mentioned in 2 Kings 13:5. Sheshonq's campaign, according to his own 
campaign list, was almost all in the northern kingdom of Israel, in 
areas captured by Hazael of Aram, and so was a reassertion of 
traditional Egyptian authority over this area; Sheshonq does not mention 
capturing Jerusalem, which is rather surprising if in fact he did sack 
this important city as recorded of Shishak.


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