A military confrontation in the Middle East occurred about 3000 years ago in the 5th year of Judah’s King Rehoboam and the 20th year of Egypt’s King Shoshenq I. Though the campaign was recorded in the annals of both nations, agreement on the actual year—which could anchor the chronologies of each—has not been established, despite much effort over the last century. The main Egyptian testimony for Shoshenq I’s war in Judah and Israel is a relief on the walls of additions he made to the Karnak temple in his 21st year with a list of about 150 sacked cities, much of which is illegible. The name Shoshenq is variously rendered in English, including Sheshonq, and the Hebrew name Shishak is generally attributed to the same Egyptian king. The Judean account of the war with Egypt is reported in 1 Kings 14:25: “In the fifth year of King Jeroboam, King Shishak of Egypt came up against Jerusalem; he took away the treasures of the house of the LORD and the treasures of the king’s house …..” (NRSV. A more detailed account is in 2 Chronicles 12:1-3ff).
Edwin Thiele, a Seventh Day Adventist teacher, authored The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, which—in the absence of a credible alternative—for the last 50 years has been a standard reference for dating reigns in the 1st and 2nd Books of Kings in the Old Testament. But Thiele based his theories only on the Hebrew Masoretic Text which only goes back to about 1000 CE. He dismissed the variant numbers recorded in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Text, as it stood about 1200 years earlier, around 200 BCE. The Septuagint was widely accepted at the time of Jesus Christ, was quoted in the New Testament, and was used to spread Christianity through the early centuries of the Common Era (CE).
Thiele explained the “mysterious” numbers by invoking separate calendars for Judah and Israel, and many co‑regencies; which find no mention in the records. He supported his theory by a continuous list of Assyrian Kings which remains unproven.
My Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom published in 2005 considered all the biblical texts, and established that Rehoboam’s 5th year was 977 BCE, 52 years earlier than Thiele’s proposed date. But the date for Judah was only half of the equation in the Rehoboam and Shoshenq I engagement. How did it fit with Egyptian chronology?
During the last century the tempo and temperature in meetings and writings between Egyptologists, scientists, and archaeologists has risen dramatically—all intent on establishing the dates for Egyptian events. They have dealt with Ramesses II, the Eruption of Thera on Santorini, which produced pumice used in some Egyptian monuments, and many other themes. Inscriptions and evidence continues to emerge from the sands of Egypt.
The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom established the Egyptian chronology in part, confirming that Shoshenq I’s 20th year was 977 BCE. Now I present the full chronology for the Egyptian Dynasties 1-25 anchored by the heliacal risings of Sirius (Sothis) and lunar phases, which modern reconstructions can identify precisely. A new understanding of Egyptian calendars is a critical feature of the reconstruction.
With the completion of this reconstructed chronology of the Egyptian kings, the date of Rehoboam’s encounter with Shoshenq I is established by independent chronologies of Israel/Judah (in The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom), and of Egypt (herein). The date of 977 BCE in the total dynastic framework of Egyptian chronology finally makes sense of all the evidence from inscriptions, archaeological effort, and scientific research.
I wish to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of Dr. Lee W. Casperson in accomplishing this project. In two JNES articles in the 1980s he employed astronomical data to evaluate proposed dates for Thutmose III and Ramesses II—“The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III,” (J Near E Stud, Vol. 45, No. 2: 139-150) and “The Lunar Date of Ramesses II,” (J Near E Stud, Vol. 47, No. 3: 181-184). The use of this data offered a means for testing the feasibility of dates proposed from inscriptions and other sources. Over the many years of this research, Dr Casperson has provided me (upon request) with numerous sets of tables for specified periods. For this collaboration, and the corroboration that his data has supplied, I am truly grateful.
M. Christine Tetley, Th.D,
Whangarei, New Zealand,
3 July 2013.