Claude: There seem to be at least two issues involved here: (1) the reliability of the Rehov 14C dating, and (2) the Shoshenq-Shishak identification. If there is some reason to suspect the Rehov sample was contaminated by somewhat younger materials, a later date for the destruction can be justified regardless of whether one prefers Albright or Thiele’s chronology. If Shishak has been somehow misidentified, the whole chronology is subject to some degree of adjustment.

I note that the Goldberg article I linked to now seems inaccessible. I’ll double-check the link, but here is an important section with respect to Shoshenq-Shishak (footnotes in original):

The first chronological element discussed by Kitchen involves the identity of the Egyptian king, Shishak (1 Kg 14:25, etc.), who conquered Judah in the 5th year of Solomon’s successor, Rehoboam (c.925 BC). A rejection of the usual candidate, Shoshenq I (founder of the 22nd Dynasty), would probably trigger a major chronological shift because no nearly contemporary Egyptian ruler provides an at all attractive alternative.

While Kitchen’s conclusion in favor of Shoshenq I is remarkably extreme: “We either accept straight and strict philological facts, or give up all equations entirely; and that is the end of the matter.” (CAJ 1,239), this king’s philological attractiveness is certainly undeniable. However, Kitchen’s characterization of the historical problems facing a Shoshenq I / Shishak identification as “frivolous and exaggerated” (ibid) is not at all accurate. Concerning, e.g., the evident omission of Jerusalem from Shoshenq’s city-list, Kitchen argues that this list “is not complete, nor was Jerusalem stormed; hence, it may be lost in a lacuna, but never need have been mentioned at all”. However, Kitchen’s own Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (TIPE) states flatly (p.298) that Jerusalem “does not appear” in this list. And Shishak’s alleged failure to take Jerusalem is not very helpful, since such lists routinely included sites under much less onerous Egyptian domination (if any) than was Jerusalem at this time. An equally serious problem arises from the virtually total restriction of Shoshenq I’s campaign to Israel, Transjordan and Edom, rather than Judah (contrast 2 Chr 12:4: ‘he took the fenced cities which pertained to Judah’).

Other problems, arising from the description of Shishak’s army as ‘Lubim, Sukiim and Ethiopians’ (2 Chr 12:3), may help point the way to an alternative chronology. This description can be compared with the situation in year 15 of Asa (c.896) when ‘Zerah the Ethiopian’ (2 Chr 14:8 [Eng. 9]) is said to have invaded Judah with an army of ‘Ethiopians and Lubim’ (2 Chr 16:8). As many scholars (e.g. Kitchen) have argued, the presence of Libyans (‘Lubim’) as a major component in Zerah’s army (cf. Shishak’s army ca.30 years earlier) suggests strongly that it came from Egypt. I.e. ‘Ethiopians’ appear to have been of great military importance in late 10th / early 9th c. Egypt. As a result, it appears difficult to interpret these ‘Ethiopians’ (literally ‘Kushites’) as anyone except Nubians. But while Nubian troops were very important under Dyn.19-20 and especially late Dyn.19-Dyn.20, there appears to be no evidence for Nubian troops in Egypt (or for any Egypto-Nubian relations at all) during Dyn.21 or the 1st half of Dyn.22 (usually dated to c.1075-825). ‘Sukiim’ provides the same chronological pointer, as its accepted Egyptian equivalent, ‘Tjukten’, is only attested under late Dyn.19-Dyn.20 (TIPE 295 n.291; CAJ 2,127).

Your views about Shishak is new to me. I will have to do more research in light of your post.

If you take the Albright’s chronology for the divided monarchy, then the chronology makes some sense. According to the Albright’s chronology, Rehoboam’s first year as king was 922 so, his 5th year would be 917, which would fit with your 914 date. What do you think?

Claude Mariottini