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.
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.
EDITOR'S NOTE
Dr Christine Tetley died on 19 July 2013. She was the first female graduate of New Zealand’s Laidlaw College to be awarded a Doctorate in Theology. It was awarded by the Australian College of Theology, again the first awarded to a woman by thesis (others had been honoris causa). Her thesis was published in 2005 by Eisenbrauns entitled The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom. She completed this present work two weeks before her death. Her husband, Rev. Barry Tetley (M.Div. Hons.) has been in Christian ministry for 45 years, including 12 years as a lecturer at NZ's Laidlaw College. He was responsible for the final editing of the text.
The central chronological thesis of this presentation is established by the concordance of inscriptional and astronomical evidence available to Dr Tetley at the time of compilation. It radically differs from most chronological estimates in current Egyptological publications.
It establishes the early use of a civil Calendar in Upper Egypt with Wep Renpet as the first month, with a changing four-year link to the annual heliacal rising of Sothis, referred to in inscriptions. A great number of events reported in historical materials link to new or full moon events, that are pin-pointed by secure astronomical evidence. This evidence establishes the date of Neferefre's reign as the earliest secure date in Egyptian history. From this date, together with analysis of the Turin Canon, the reconstructed Royal Annals, and other ancient king-lists, Dr Tetley establishes new dates for the first five dynasties. Later dynastic records contain numerous sothic or lunar references, which enable the reconstruction of a chronology that conforms to astronomical evidence. Such evidence is not susceptible to the vagaries of guess-work and estimation from a flawed starting date, as is currently relied upon in much of the present information available to the public.
Dr Tetley's methodology must be examined on its merits. The study of Ancient Egypt is ongoing, and Dr Tetley hoped that her contribution to its chronology would provide answers with a confidence that has so far eluded the Egyptology community.
New information can fill “knowledge gaps” and further refine her endeavour. The editor invites readers who recognize such gaps, or errors in the compiled material, to communicate directly with him. Any material of chronological significance that could improve and refine The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings would be exactly within the intentions of Dr Tetley, and would be considered for inclusion and recognition within the existing narrative.
Finally, I wish to thank Ruth Blaikie for her superb skills in copy editing this project for publication.
Barry Tetley
barry.tetley@gmail.com
The central chronological thesis of this presentation is established by the concordance of inscriptional and astronomical evidence available to Dr Tetley at the time of compilation. It radically differs from most chronological estimates in current Egyptological publications.
It establishes the early use of a civil Calendar in Upper Egypt with Wep Renpet as the first month, with a changing four-year link to the annual heliacal rising of Sothis, referred to in inscriptions. A great number of events reported in historical materials link to new or full moon events, that are pin-pointed by secure astronomical evidence. This evidence establishes the date of Neferefre's reign as the earliest secure date in Egyptian history. From this date, together with analysis of the Turin Canon, the reconstructed Royal Annals, and other ancient king-lists, Dr Tetley establishes new dates for the first five dynasties. Later dynastic records contain numerous sothic or lunar references, which enable the reconstruction of a chronology that conforms to astronomical evidence. Such evidence is not susceptible to the vagaries of guess-work and estimation from a flawed starting date, as is currently relied upon in much of the present information available to the public.
Dr Tetley's methodology must be examined on its merits. The study of Ancient Egypt is ongoing, and Dr Tetley hoped that her contribution to its chronology would provide answers with a confidence that has so far eluded the Egyptology community.
New information can fill “knowledge gaps” and further refine her endeavour. The editor invites readers who recognize such gaps, or errors in the compiled material, to communicate directly with him. Any material of chronological significance that could improve and refine The Reconstructed Chronology of the Egyptian Kings would be exactly within the intentions of Dr Tetley, and would be considered for inclusion and recognition within the existing narrative.
Finally, I wish to thank Ruth Blaikie for her superb skills in copy editing this project for publication.
Barry Tetley
barry.tetley@gmail.com