Mephis19 minutes ago
Radiocarbon dating is not pointing to Shishak's invasion being c.871 Lars. There is a destruction event which may be around that time period at one site which has another destruction event with an earlier date which does fit the 'traditional' Shoshenq I dating.
Hi Mephis. The problem here is that Finkelstein and Mazar have already published some C14 data for destructive level City IV at Rehov pointing to the high probability date of that sample to c. 871 BCE and they have already linked that to Shishak, at least Finkelstein has. His argument is that the pottery fits "Solomonic" Megiddo 5A-4B. So they are diluting and backtracking now. I have to hunt down Mazar's original excitement about this. Even so, here's the chart showing the dating for destructive level City IV of Rehov, which Finkelstein links to the Solomonic level at Megiddo. So your "words" don't address what's out there:
The sample chart is here in this PDF on page 291:
It is a sample of destructive level city IV at Rehov.
In the meantime, you're taking sides with Mazar in this debate of "high chronology" vs. "low chronology," which is totally your choice. But Finkelstein argues to link Megiddo VA-IVB with Rehov IV. Here's is an abstract on that position:
ABSTRACT: Bruins, van der Plicht and Mazar (2003a) recently presented a new set of 14C measurements from Tel Rehov and interpret them as supporting at least part of the conventional chronology system for the Iron Age strata in the Levant. The present article takes issue with the provenance of the samples and with Bruins, van der Plicht and Mazar's methodology, historical arguments and interpretation of the measurements using the calibration curve. The article shows that the new readings from Tel Rehov far from support the conventional chronology. First, there is an alternative interpretation for the readings from Tel Rehov V, which falls in the very late 10th century BCE. Second, Tel Rehov IV is the contemporary of Megiddo VA (VA–IVB) and hence the latter, with its ashlar palaces, must be dated to the first half of the 9th century BCE. This means that the new Tel Rehov measurements support the most important component of the Low Chronology system.
Megiddo of the Kings of Israel - ResearchGate. Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/246801844_Megiddo_of_the_Kings_of_Israel [accessed Jul 17, 2015].
So even if I'm taking sides with Finkelstein, I'm still agreeing with an archaeological opinion out there. But it doesn't matter from my perspective as a Biblical chronologist. I've linked the Exodus to specifically the absolute date of 1386 BCE based on the interpretation that the return of the Jews in 1947 began their 70th jubilee. So I'm more or less stuck with that reference for comparison. So all I'm doing to comparing my interpretation of the biblical timeline, which I offer no apologies for, with who is dating what. 1386 BCE works well with Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho, as noted. It works well with destructive level City IV of Rehov c. 871 BCE.
Now you're saying the C14 is not pointing to 871 BCE as Shishak's invasion. If that's the case, then that's the case. Regardless, per the bible, I have to date Shishak's invasion to 871 BCE, year 39 of Solomon. That's not going to change. But the chart is right there. It shows a sample showing the destructive level at Rehov City IV pointing to a very narrow point of dates say from 874-868 BCE! I use 871 BC because the highest probability dates are right in the middle of the range. 871 BCE is the mid-range date. But I understand this is give or take 5 years. But the claim by the researchers is that this dating method is accurate to within "less than ten years." So, yes, it is just a coincidence that the middle of this range date to 871 BCE just happens to be the precise year I calculate based on the Bible's timelines. At any rate, if Finkelstein's opinion is that Rehov City IV matches Megiddo VA-IVB, which is the "Solomonic" level, then that destructive level would have been by Shishak. That is, Shishak invaded Israel and Judah in year 39 of Solomon and Solomon is said to have been responsible for those massive palaces and other structures in the "early 9th Century BC" per Finkelstein (900-867 BCE). So 871 BCE is still on the table for Shishak, even though I aknowledge debate between Mazar and Finkelstein on this point. But still, there's nothing I can do. I still have to date year 39 of Solomon to 871 BCE. Having noted that, apparently there is some C14 evidence that would correspond with that.
Good luck trying to persuade anyone that Assyrian history needs to be shifted in order to accommodate the bible. Really. Because ultimately doing that you run into needing to redate the Babylonians too (because that slots in perfectly with the current chronology) and no-one is stupid enough to even begin to want to play that game.. well, apart from Jdub apologists... and I guess there's others. Kandalanu's reign is pretty well nailed down (as in, fixed and it ain't moving) for dating and 763 eclipse works to tie the Assyrian to the Babylonian via the Uruk Kings List through that too.
I don't need "luck." Again, for one, as I said, I'm stuck with the Bible's timeline to compare. If it turns out the Bible's timeline makes no sense archaeologically or historically, then I just have to deal with that. 1386 BCE willl always be the year of the Exodus and 455 BCE will always be the year for the 1st of Cyrus. Period. Having noted that, though, you can convert the conventional dataing for Shishak in 925 BCE to 871 BCE by an eclipse switch for an eclipse in 763 BCE to an eclipse in 709 BCE.
And yes that will lower the Neo-Babylonian Period. But the Neo-Babylonian Period has already been lowered so that the 1st of Cyrus occurs in 455 BCE rather than in 538 BCE. So no problem. Now, I have no responsibility to correct the secular timeline, only provide the correct Biblical timeline. But, in fact, the Greek timeline has already been corrected which agrees with the dating of the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE. Basically, an eclipse occurring in the first year of the PPW is falsely dated to 431 BCE and corrected so that the PPW wars begins in 403 BCE. A 30-year peace agreement ended in year 10 of the war in 394 BCE. This 30-year peace agreement was enacted the year of Xerxes' invasion and thus dates the Battle of Salamis to 424 BCE. That is the same year Herodotus reports another eclipse over Persia in the early Spring, which does occur on March 21, 424 BCE. The two corrected eclipse confirm each other and proves this was the original Greek timeline. That means the Battle of Marathon 10 years earlier is dated to 434 BCE. Per the Bible, whether or not you believe a word of it, kills Darius I off in his sixth year (Ezra 6:14,15).
Per Herodotus, Darius is killed at Marathon. So if Darius dies at Marathon in 434 BCE and that is really his sixth year prior to revisions which expanded his rule by 30 years to 36 years, then that means the temple was completed in 434 BCE, year 6 of Darius I. The temple work began 21 years earlier in the 1st of Cyrus. Add 21 years to 434 BCE and you get 455 BCE. The revised dates are the return in 537 and the completion of the temple in 516 BCE. (537 - 516 = 21). The original timeline and the Biblical timeline would be the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE and the death of Darius in his sixth year, which is also the year of the Battle of Marathon in 434 BCE.
This is the conundrum about these discussions. The archaeologists debating over the Iron Age Period have no control over the Greek timeline. If the corrections to the Greek timeline occur, then it will simply affect the current timeline they are using, specifically reducing the dates by exactly 54 years, since the Assyrian Period is linked to a single eclipse event.
But note what happens when you assign the 709 BCE eclipse to the Assyrian Period. It lowers dates by 54 years. Shishak's invasion in 925 BCE is lowered to 871 BCE, which is where at leasst one sample is pointing to his invasion the very same year. It means Solomon's 4th year specifically falls in 906 BCE which in turn dates the Exodus to 1386 BCE. So using the 709 BCE eclipse to reduce the Assyrian Period gives you the absolute and specific date of the Exodus in 1386 BCE. That is, when you consider a 6-year co-rulership between Rehoboam and Solomon and date Shishak's invasion late in the rule of Solomon, which I will provide you with the scriptural specifics if you wish.
So the timeline has essentially already been corrected. If I tell you that the Greeks revised their timeline, what can you tell me? Nothing. Because I can prove it. Lowering the NB timeline and the Assyrian timeline is no problem, because they are based on relative history primarily. But when you get to the Iron Age, you have lots of C14 dating and pottery dating everything. When the comparisons are made to that, then you get no contradiction.
Again, for instance, is the fall of Jericho as dated by Kathleen Kenyon to 1350-1325 BCE by Joshua. That's the reference. She is saying that doesn't work for the Exodus in 1446 BCE! But if you date the Exodus to 1386 BCE using the 709 BCE eclipse, then the fall of Jericho occurs in her range in 1346 BCE. See? So what is there in place to contradict the Bible's timeline? Nothing. As impossible as it seems to lower the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Periods a half century, the Persian Period is such to easily accommodate that reduction. That is, it is quite easy to remove the extra 82 years from the Persian Period, since it was artificially expanded in the first place.
So in other words, if I walk up to Israel Finkelstein and say, guess what? The Biblical date for Shishak's invasion is 871 BCE per the Bible. What can he say? Nothing. I'll say, I can see you have at lest one sample from the destructive level of City IV at Rehov with a mid-point range date of 871 BCE. What can he say? Nothing.
if I tell him, guess what? I found out Xenophon revised the Greek timeline and now it has been corrected using the correct eclipse. What can he say? Nothing. That's not his area of expertise. What can YOU say? Nothing.
If I tell you per the bible Darius I only ruled for six years, what can you say? Nothing. You can say you don't believe it and there are lots of secular references that say he ruled 36 years all you want to. That doesn't mean the Bible only assigns a 6-year rule to his reign. If you prefer the secular references to the Bible, then fine. But as I said, the Greek Period timeline is easily corrected by an eclipse event in the first year of the PPW so the timeline has already been corrected. You simply use the 709 BCE eclipse to date the Assyrian Period and then make comparisons with the reduced dates with the archaeological dates, which have already shown the Assyrian Period is misdated a half century.
Finkelstein looks stupid or dishonest that he didn't figure out he should have simply dated David and Solomon a half century later rather than claiming they were myths. But he is forgiven since he provides the critical dates now agreeing with the Bible's timeline.
Now you are tellling me "good luck" in correcting the Assyrian timeline. I've already done it. What I'm telling YOU now is that if you use the conventional dating now, you're incompetent. The Greek timeline has been corrected already. It's been done and it was as easy as pie and it ends all the phony debates over dates in the Iron Age.
So ultimately, the ONLY MESSAGE I have is that the current conventional dating for Shishak is NOT the Bible's dataing for Shishak. Per the Bible, Shishak invades in 871 BCE, not 925 BCE. Now if that conflicts with some interpretation of the archaeology, then so be it, the interpretation is spurious. But turns out it doesn't We have C14 dating City IV of Rehov to precisely 871 BCE. So it's a done deal. A completely done deal.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Akhenaten if the pharaoh of the Exodus per the Bible and he appropriately converted to monotheism after the ten plagues. No big surprise.
Thanks for the references.