No fall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, And No Fall of Kingdom of Judah

This requires basically re-writing the accepted chronology, which places Shoshenq's (who most scholars equate with the Biblical Shishak) invasion in the aftermath of Solomon's reign, and there is no compelling reason to do that.
The Biblical account of Shishak's campaign does not match Shoshenq's Karnak inscription. However, the places mentioned at Karnak are associated in the Bible with Saul. You can argue that the Karnak inscription is weathered but the names of sites north of Jerusalem are clear. Also the Biblical account has Jeroboam as previously on good terms with Egypt, so it is not obvious why Shishak should be attacking the Northern Kingdom.

The Egyptian Chronology is mostly made absolute using Shishak, a calculation of reigns and Ahab's battle with the Assyrians to link to Assyrian Chronology and the 911 eclipse. I am not sure if there are any Sothic dates that independently force Shoshenq's invasion to around 927.
 
The Biblical account of Shishak's campaign does not match Shoshenq's Karnak inscription. However, the places mentioned at Karnak are associated in the Bible with Saul. You can argue that the Karnak inscription is weathered but the names of sites north of Jerusalem are clear.
Nevertheless, the inscription IS damaged, not just weathered, and the fact that Jerusalem is not mentioned in the surviving inscription (which is the main objection raised by those who take issue with the linkage of Shoshenq to Shishak) does not mean that it was not there originally.

Also the Biblical account has Jeroboam as previously on good terms with Egypt, so it is not obvious why Shishak should be attacking the Northern Kingdom.

Because he was on a plundering expedition, and Israel had goodies he wanted? Really, kings at this period of history needed little reason to plunder a weak neighbor.

The Egyptian Chronology is mostly made absolute using Shishak, a calculation of reigns and Ahab's battle with the Assyrians to link to Assyrian Chronology and the 911 eclipse. I am not sure if there are any Sothic dates that independently force Shoshenq's invasion to around 927.

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. Based on what I have read on the subject, the main disagreements with regard to Sheshonq's place in the Egyptian chronology seem to be related to when his reign began, not to when his Palestinian campaign was carried out. The conventional date for Sheshonq's campaign is 925 BC.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. Based on what I have read on the subject, the main disagreements with regard to Sheshonq's place in the Egyptian chronology seem to be related to when his reign began, not to when his Palestinian campaign was carried out. The conventional date for Sheshonq's campaign is 925 BC.
I was saying that Egyptian chronology is normally fixed using the 925 BC date rather than using Egyptian evidence. We have good evidence for the dates of the Old Kingdom pyramids and the Assyrian invasion. The only firm evidence between might come from Sothic dates. I agree that chronologists might be upset to have to recalculate the 23rd, 24th and 25th Dynasty reign lengths but I assumed that it would work. The shift might be quite small. Finkelstein quotes examples of names from the David and Solomon story reflecting names known from 800-700 BC, so I was suspicious of the existance of kings like Jeroboam I. I also assumed that David and Solomon reigned for much less than 40 years each.
 
sorry for my abstinence

Sorry for being away for such a long time... I had to focus a bit on my work and on my studies (i'm freshman year student). I haven't forgotten about this thread and I hope I will be able to post the next chapter as soon as possible. thanks for all those who have shown interest in the thread and kept it alive. I really appreciate it.
 
Top