THE DIVIDED
MONARCHY TO THE FALL OF SAMARIA
|
927/926
|
Campaign
of Pharaoh Shishak against Judah in Rehoboam's 5th regnal year (1 Ki
14:25-26; 2 Ch 12:2-9). |
 Who
was Shishak? The traditional theory is
that biblical Shishak (or Shishaq) is the same as Hedjkheperre Shoshenk
I. The invasion in the reign of Rehoboam is equated to Shoshenq I’s
Year
20 campaign into Palestine. Rohl points out some problems, however.
Most significantly, the list of place-names indicates that Shoshenq’s
army mainly traversed the central hill country down to the Jordan
valley, then up to the eastern entrance of the Jezreel valley and
westwards along its floor before crossing the Mount Carmel ridge and
heading home along the coastal plain. As Rohl explains,
The whole situation is
topsy-turvy: whilst
Shishak attacks Judah and enters Jerusalem to plunder the Temple of
Yahweh, Shoshenk attacks Israel and does not mention Jerusalem as one
of the defeated cities in his campaign record; Shishak is allied to
Israel and subjugates Judah whilst Shoshenk subjugates Israel and
avoids confrontation with Judah. So can we honestly continue to contend
that the Palestine campaign of Shoshenk I is identical with that of
Shishak as mentioned in Kings and Chronicles? (PK 127)
Rohl argues a better case can be made for Ramesses II as the biblical
Shishak. Based on calculations independent of attempts at biblical
synchronism, Rohl had estimated that Ramesses II reigned in the late
tenth and early ninth centuries (over 300 years later than in
conventional chronology!). Egyptologists accept that Ramesses did
in fact campaign in Palestine and even plundered Jerusalem in the
eighth year of his reign. This might be equated with the Egyptian
invasion in Rehoboam’s year 5.
But what about the name “Shishak”? The verbal similarity with Shoshenq
would seem to count against the identification of Shishak with
Ramesses, but not necessarily. Ss,
Ssw, Ssy, or Sysw, pronounced Sesa
(or something similar), can be demonstrated to be a common abbreviated
form of the name Ramesses, and there are numerous examples of the
Semitic scripts of Western Asia substituting Egyptian ‘s’ with ‘sh’ and
vice versa. (PK 157).
Presented with a name that might have been written Shisha in Hebrew
characters, a biblical writer or redactor may have made a play on the
name by adding a letter qof at the end, creating a pun on the Hebrew
word “assaulter” or “the one who crushes” (PK 163).
Goldberg agrees that
Shoshenq I makes a terrible fit with the biblical "Shishak," but he
proposes that it was in fact Ramesses IX (r. 934-915) who invaded Judah
in Rehoboam's fifth year. He explains,
This is unsubstantiated, but then
again, no at all appropriate Egyptian record of Shishak's campaign
appears to exist. A Ramesses IX identification would at least help
explain this lack by the late Dyn.20 breakdown of royal authority and
increased dependence on foreign troops. Perhaps very significantly,
this choice agrees excellently with surprising evidence from Beth-Shan,
where Egyptian royal stelae were restored to a position of honor for a
significant period beginning during late Dyn.20. Since there is no
evidence for on-going Egyptian military domination of this region then,
such continuing respect for Egypt should reflect a pro-Egyptian
tendency by its ruler, in very good agreement (contrast the accepted
chronology) with expectations concerning Jeroboam. This evident late
Dyn.20 restoration of the Egyptian position in Palestine is best
associated with Ramesses IX, since he is the only late Dyn.20 king for
whom remains of any monument have been found in Palestine.
Furlong
likewise identifies Shishak with Ramesses IX, and further argues that
this campaign should be dated to that pharaoh's eighteenth year.
Furlong appeals to the
“Report of
Wenamun”
for insights into this particular period of Egyptian history and how
the Old Testament intersects it. He sees in the story of the ill-fated
envoys who had earlier been sent to Byblos in the Wenamun story an
indication of Ramesses IX’s attempts to reassert Egyptian control over
Canaan at the beginning of his reign, but to little avail. Perhaps
Shishak’s support for Jeroboam’s first failed rebellion against Solomon
is another indicator of the same policy. Subsequently, Furlong writes,
when Solomon died…, Jeroboam returned home [from exile
in Egypt] to claim the throne of Israel. Now in possession of an
indebted ally/vassal as ruler of the kingdom of Israel, Ramesses IX
would have been in a stronger position to impose Egyptian authority
upon those other recalcitrant minor kingdoms and city-states which had
refused to accept Egyptian authority during the preceding decades.
Then, in the fifth year of Rehoboam (923/2), Shishak/Ramesses IX would
have successfully campaigned in Judah, pillaging the temple in
Jerusalem and making Rehoboam a vassal of Egypt. The Pharaoh presumably
continued further north, possibly intent on reaching Byblos in order to
teach its ruler a lesson for the insult committed by detaining his
ambassadors for so many years. However, at some point before reaching
his destination, Ramesses must have suffered some setback, or change of
plan, resulting in the Egyptian envoys to Byblos being put to death in
an act of defiance by the city’s ruler. (352)
Admittedly, there is no
explicit evidence that Ramesses IX campaigned
in Canaan, but there are traces of an inlay found at Gezer—a city
Shishak would have subdued on his way to or from Jerusalem—bearing his
name. Furthermore, by his own self-description, “His battle cry is in
the foreign lands, crusher of mountains… awe of him pervades the hearts
of the northerners” (Ibid.). |
| 901/900 |
After ten years of peace, Zerah
"the Kushite" conducts a
campaign in Canaan (2 Ch 14:1, 6, 9-15) apparently in the eleventh year
of Asa.
Furlong suggests that year
11 Asa corresponds to Ramesses XI’s
22nd regnal
year and thus to year 4 of the “Renaissance” era, then the logical
candidate for identification with Zerah is the Nubian general Panehsy
(Pinhasy, Panehesy), who was a powerful player in Egyptian politics in
precisely this period. (Pa-nehesy is Egyptian for "the Nubian" or "the
Kushite.") At this point, at the end of the 20th Dynasty, Nubian power
reached a peak in Egypt that was not repeated until the later eighth
century.
Goldberg also also
believes that Zerah may
be "very
nicely identifiable" with Panehsy, although he dates this campaign to
Asa's fifteenth year or c. 896. Most likely, this would place his
downfall just after Year 18 of
Ramesses XI in his chronology. Locating Panehesy's defeat in Israel
fits nicely with an
occurrence in Year 23, when Wenamun, an
Egyptian envoy, was treated with contempt in the Levantine ports of Dor
and Byblos.
|
895
|
"In the
thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa," Baasha of Israel goes to war
against Judah (2 Ch 16:1). According to the Seder Olam, this refers not to the
36th year of Asa's reign (Baasha died Asa's 26th year), but to the 36th
year since the death of Solomon. This reading reads the lamed-preposition on malkut (“reign”) as if it were a bet--which is not unwarranted in
terms of the semantic range of the preposition--and reads, "In the
thirty-sixth year [i.e., of the divided monarchy], in the reign of
Asa." This works out to be Asa's 16th regnal year. |
885-880
|
Israelite
rival monarchies: Tibni and Omri (1 Ki 16:15-23). Omri ruled from
Tirzah for 6 years (apparently until Tibni died), then built the city
of Samaria. |
871/870
|
Furlong
proposes that Shoshenq I’s year 20 campaign into Israel is
actually to be equated with an unusual story from the third year of
Jehoshaphat, at which time,
[H]he sent his officials….
They taught in Judah, having the book of the law of the LORD with them;
they went around through all the cities of Judah and taught among the
people.
The fear of the LORD fell on all the kingdoms of the lands
around
Judah, and they did not make war against Jehoshaphat. Some of the
Philistines brought Jehoshaphat presents, and silver for tribute; and
the Arabs also brought him seven thousand seven hundred rams and seven
thousand seven hundred male goats. (2 Chr 17:7-12)
Equating the “fear of the LORD” with neighboring nations’ dread of an
Egyptian invasion is not self-evident. Furlong advances the following
lines of circumstantial evidence:
- Shoshenq I appears to have campaigned in the territory
surrounding
Judah but not to have touched Judah itself. This seems to comport with
the notice that fear gripped “all the kingdoms of the lands around
Judah.”
- That Judah was not attacked may suggest that Jehoshaphat,
seeing
the handwriting on the wall, quickly moved to submit to Shoshenq in
order to avoid hostilities.
- This act of submission would have to be quickly
communicated to all
the Judahite garrisons: “Even one recalcitrant town offering resistance
to the Egyptian army could have potentially led to Shoshenq deeming
Judah a hostile kingdom and attacking it in like manner to the other
surrounding nations” (357). This may explain the need for royal
officials to go through “all the cities of Judah.”
- The fact that civil officials are listed before Levites and
priests
in verses 7-8 may hint that there was more to their mission than simply
religious instruction of the masses, and in fact the religious element
(providing a theological rationale for submitting to Egypt??) may have
been secondary.
- The tribute Jehoshaphat later received might be understood
as
Shoshenq’s reward for allegiance. Perhaps he was granted sovereignty
over certain Philistine towns and over the regions inhabited by Arab
nomads. Whatever the reason the Philistines and Arabs sent tribute, it
cannot have been (purely) spiritual in nature. Furlong is certainly
right to suggest, “whatever theological ’spin’ the Chronicler may have
wished to put on Jehoshaphat’’s righteousness and piety, neighbouring
peoples would not have sent tribute to Judah without an underlying
military or political reason” (Ibid.).
Finally, it should be noted that this date for Shoshenq’s
campaign matches nearly perfectly with the radiocarbon date of c. 871 BC
from Tel Rehov city IV, commonly identified with the city destroyed by
Shoshenq.
|
870-868
|
 Three
and one-half years of drought during the reign of
Ahab of
Israel. The drought is finally brought to an end after Elijah's
confrontation with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Ki 17). |
853
|
Upon
the death of Ahab,
Moab rises to assert its
independence from Israel. They succeed in liberating the northern
region of
Medeba. This (partial) victory is commemorated on the Mesha Stele,
erected ca.
843. |
852
|
Elijah
is taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot early in the reign of Joram of
Israel (2 Ki 2). |
ca. 850
|
Elisha
heals Naaman (2 Ki 5), apparently during the reign of Joram. |
849-842
|
During
the reign of Jehoram of Judah, the Edomites revolt (2 Ki 8:20), along
with the border town of Libnah (2 Ki 8:22). Around the same time, there
is an uprising from a coalition of Philistines and Arabs (2 Ch
21:16-17).
In the New Chronology, these
disturbances may be related to the arrival of a second wave of
Philistines invading from the Aegean in the time of Ramesses III (which
Goldberg had placed at the end of David's reign).
In Goldberg's chronology,
these uprisings may have been partially precipitated by Shoshenq I's
Year 21 campaign in Canaan (ca. 848):
Shoshenq's
campaign would have respected to some degree the independence of a
still powerful Judah, while treating Israel (in the wake of 2 Kg 3:27)
as a weak vassal. The main focus would likely have been a demonstration
(at least) against Damascus (cf. the alignment implied by 2 Kg 7:6). In
view of the great wealth of Israel and Judah a few years earlier (1 Kg
22:39, 2 Chr 17:5,11f.), their treasuries would probably have
contributed significantly to Shoshenq I's great profit from this
campaign.
Furthermore, an Egyptian
intervention at this time would provide a very good explanation for the
contrast between the meager Egyptian effort at Qarqar a few years
earlier in 853 and the great fear aroused by rumors of an Egyptian
intervention against Damascus sometime in the 840's (2 Ki 7:6).
|
842
|
Joram of
Israel and Ahaziah of Judah ally against Aram (2 Ki 8:25-29). |
841
|
Jehu is
anointed king of Israel (2 Ki 9). Around the same time, Athaliah usurps
power at the death of her son, Ahaziah (2 Ki 11). Jehoiadah protects
Joash for 7 years until he assumes the throne. |
835
|
Beginning
this date or perhaps a bit later, Joash repairs the temple in Jerusalem
(2 Ki 12). |
796-782
|
Death of
Elisha (2 Ki 13) during the reign of Joash of Israel. |
767-753
|
Ministry
of Amos during the reigns of Uzziah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel.
Ministry
of Hosea during the reign of Jeroboam II and after his death during the
rival kingship of Menahem and Pekah, as late as 742.
|
752-739
|
Upon the
death of Jeroboam II, a rival kingship arises in Israel: Menahem and
Pekah (2 Ki 15). |
740-739
|
"In the
year that King Uzziah died," Isaiah receives his prophetic call (Isa
6:1). His ministry lasts until ca. 700 if not later. |
740-687
|
Ministry
of Micah in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. Micah was a younger
contemporary of Isaiah. |
735
|
The
Syro-Ephraimitic crisis in the time of Pekah of Israel and Ahaz of
Judah (2 Ki 16; cf. Isa 7), apparently early in Ahaz’s reign. |
The Birth of Hezekiah.
According to 2 Kings 16:1, Ahaz was 20 years when he began to reign and
reigned for 20 years. According to 2 Kings 18:2, Hezekiah was 25 years
old when he began to reign. Does this mean that Ahaz became a father at
age 11?
No. There are at least two factors to consider when interpreting these
passages. The first is that Ahaz ruled for four years as co-regent with
his father Jotham. If 2 Kings 16 counted this as the beginning of
Ahaz's reign, he would have been 14 when Hezekiah was born. Although
unusual by modern standards, becoming a parent this young is not
impossible, nor would it have been terribly unusual in the ancient
world--especially if there were pressures on Ahaz to produce an heir
quickly because the dynasty were somehow being threatened (as indeed it
seems was the case with the Assyrians constantly threatening in this
era).
The second factor is a possible copyist's error in the text. If
Hezekiah were not 25 but either 20 or 15 upon his accession, this would
make Ahaz's age at paternity 19 or 24 (if the beginning of his
coregency is in view in 2 Ki 16) or 16 or 21 (if Ahaz's sole reign is
meant).
It should be noted that, chronologically speaking, Hezekiah cannot be
the "Immanuel" of Isaiah 7:14. He would have been born in either 741
(following the Masoretic text) or 736 (following the most favorable
textual emendation), and thus already born at the beginning of the
Syro-Ephraimitic crisis of 735--the context of Isaiah's prophecy. |
726
|
In his sixth year, King Hoshea
of Israel seeks the support of "So, King of Egypt" (2 Ki 14:2) against
the Assyrians. The identity of this "King So" is a matter of great
speculation. In the conventional Kenneth Kitchen suggests he was the
22nd-dynasty Pharaoh Osorkon IV. Others propose that "So" is not a
personal name but a geographical reference to the city of Sais, from
which Tefnakht I of the 24th dynasty would have been reigning at this
time (in conventional chronology or either of the alternatives).
In Rohl's chronology, the
most likely candidate is Shoshenq III of the 22nd dynasty. In Goldberg's it is the 23rd
dynasty's Osorkon III.
|
725
|
The
seige of Samaria under Shalmaneser V begins (2 Ki 18:9). |
723
|
At the
end of three years siege, Samaria falls to the Assyrians under
Shalmaneser V; the end of the reign of Hoshea (2 Ki 18:10). |
David
brings the ark to Jerusalem (1 Sa 6). God establishes a covenant with
David (1 Sa 7).