Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Peter,

You wrote (in an earlier post):
> And then Shoshenk I of Egypt was dated from the synchronism with 
> Solomon, on the dubious assumption that he is the "Shishak" of 1 
> Kings 14:25

Could you explain why the assumption is "dubious"?

You also wrote:
> But in fact your argument is back to front.  It was the dating of 
> Solomon which came first, e.g. from Ussher and as more recently 
> refined e.g. by Thiele.

Whether or not in the past Egyptologists relied in the past on Biblical 
evidence for the dating of Shoshenq I, I doubt that today most 
Egyptologists would consider the Biblical evidence so reliable or useful 
for dating given the uncertainties in the record of Kings.  What I said, to
which you responded is: "Usually Solomon is dated to the mid 10th 
century based on synchronism with Shoshenq's attack 5 years after his 
reign."  And yes, today Solomon's dating is based on the synchronism
with Egyptian evidence.  But the Egyptian evidence is absolute and is
not dependent on the Biblical evidence, not for the Biblical scholars
who date Solomon, nor for the Egyptologists who date Shoshenq.  I was
talking about today.

>Indeed to the last point.  . There is little good evidence from Egypt
>for the date of Shoshenk I, and what there is is hard to reconcile with
>the mid 10th century.

Could you provide me with a reference to a discussion of "the little good
evidence from Egypt for the date of Shoshenq" and why it is hard to 
reconcile with the mid (or late) 10th century?  Preferably, I would like to
read a discussion by a professional and respected Egyptologist on the
matter.

And now to the last post:

> >I was afraid of this... ...
> 
> Well, you opened this can of worms, and you can't shut it again 
> that easily.

I don't see how my statement above about the state of scholarship
today, whereby Solomon is dated via Shoshenq, and not vice versa,
opens this can of worms.  That statement is true.  It is also a valid
objection to someone dating Solomon according to his own
interpretation of Ezekiel's prophecy.  I really doubt Egyptologists
would consider an interpretation of Ezekiel's prophecy as grounds
for dating Shoshenq differently.  And they shouldn't.

> >...  I cannot but point you to Kitchen's article at -
> >http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal/docs/volume2%20No2%20Dec2002/Kitchen%20paper.pdf
> >[Kitchen, Kenneth A., "Ancient Egyptian Chronology for Aegeanists",
> >Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 2.2 (2002)]
> >
> 
> I am aware of this paper.

Good.  Are you aware of studies arguing a different position over the last
5 years? (A response by Manning? Some other Egyptologist?)

> >2) independently works out in p. 8 that Shoshenq I lived between 
> >945-939 BCE through 924-918 BCE, in order to prove, independent 
> >of the Bible, that Shoshenq I and Shishak of the Bible were 
> >contemporaries, as far as the Bible is concerned. That it works out 
> >with the Bible is nice, but it's not necessary for any Egyptologist.
> 
> Nevertheless, Shoshenk I was dated to approximately these dates 
> long before Kitchen worked out his chronology, long before the data 
> Kitchen relies on had been discovered. That was my main point, that 
> this biblical dating is primary, and afterwards Kitchen came along and
> found support for it from Egypt.

Yes, there is indeed a problem in that the historical process by which
this date for Shoshenq was achieved is tainted due to previous views
of the Bible that are no longer current.  That is, Solomon was dated to
time X.  Then Shoshenq was dated to time X.  Then a new analysis of
Solomon's date is also constructed that is made to match Shoshenq's
time X because it is so important.  And since Kitchen might also be
influenced by Solomon's "new dating" (which is actually circularly based
on the original Solomon dating) Kitchen also tries to make out Shoshenq
to time X.  A big circular loop.  I would be interested to know if there are
similarly prominent Egyptologists that offer independent analyses from 
that of Kitchen's.  Nevertheless, Kitchen's analysis is, on paper,
independent of the Bible, and so it should be, and so should other
Egyptologists' analyses be.  Today, the study of the dating of 
Shoshenq is not dependent on the Bible (even if the figure, for historical
reasons, unfortunately is).

> Nevertheless, Kitchen's method is highly suspect. Throughout this
> article he relies on two highly dubious assumptions: 1) there are no
> co-regencies or parallel dynasties during this period, apart from ones
> for which we have specific evidence; 2) the length of each ruler's reign
> is given by the highest regnal year on an attested surviving inscription
> or document. Both of these assumptions are in fact demonstrably
> doubtful, certainly for this poorly documented period - for there are
> known co-regencies and parallel dynasties and so there are likely to be
> unknown ones; and some rulers' reign lengths have had to be revised
> upwards because of new inscriptions discovered indicating longer reigns.
> Now it might be that these factors cancel out so that Shishak is indeed
> Shoshenk I. Or it might be that one dominates the other so that Shishak
> is an earlier or later ruler in the Egyptian succession.

Kitchen does take the possibilities of co-regencies into account.  See,
for example, his comments on page 6 where he deals with Shebitku
ruling as viceroy in Nubia under Shabako.  I'm surprised to hear that 
Kitchen made so basic mistakes.  Didn't any prominent Egyptologist
point this out to him?  Also, Kitchen's article was published in 2002.
Which of the Pharaoh's reigns had to be revised afterwards due to new
inscriptions?  So, in sum, it appears to me that you are raising
non-specific objections to allow you to doubt Kitchen's method. 
However, without specifics (which new inscriptions) and without a 
reference to a similarly prominent Egyptologist who concurs that these
objections are valid, I don't know how valid these objections are.  I
note that Kitchen is here very terse, but apparently elsewhere (see
bibliography) explains the reasoning for using these specific numbers
as the reign lengths.  Here he just uses these figures to establish the
datings.

> Arguments from similarity of name are notoriously uncertain, especially
> since the same name is reused many times. I note that there is no clear
> record of the Egyptian vowels.

It's not an issue of similarity of name.  I was just pointing out that the
Egyptian $$nq exactly matches the Massoretic text on the constants,
in response to your claim of dubiousness.  But perhaps you can better
elaborate what and why you mean by dubious.  (See above).

> >Generally, if you wish to continue arguing this I would suggest taking 
> >it up on the ANE list or the Egyptology list.  
> 
> In that case, let's drop the matter. But I will not drop it when you
> have added to the misinformation and then asked for the subject to be
> dropped.

Then let's take it to ANE.  I'm subscribed there, and so are some
Egyptologists who can point out clear falacies or direct us immediately
to a more current treatment of the subject.  Do you have any objection
of me asking about your claims on ANE?

Yitzhak Sapir