& Rehoboam and Shishak,-— The Biblical evidence for this synchronism is as follows: Rehoboam came to the throne in B.C. 978. The invasion of Shishak took place in his fifth year, or B.C. 969. Shishak was already on the throne when Jeroboam fled to him from Solomon (1 Kings xi, 40). This event happened dur- ing the building of Millo, etc, when Jeroboam was head of the workmen of the house of Joseph (1 Kings xi, 27). The buflding of Millo and repairing of the breaches of the city of David was after the building of the house of Pharaoh's daughter, that was con- structed about the same time as Solomon's house, the completion of which is dated in his 24th year (1 Kings vi, 1, 87, 88 ; vii, 1 ; 2 Chron. viii, 1, where 8+20=10 +18). This building is recorded after the occurrences of that year of Solomon, for Pharaoh's daughter re- mained in Jerusalem until the king had ended build- ing his own house, and the Temple, and the wall of Jerusalem round about (1 Kings iii, 1), and Millo was built after the removal of the queen (ix, 24) ; there- fore, as Jeroboam was concerned in this building of Millo and repairing the breaches, and was met '*at that time" (xi^ 29) by Ahijah, and in consequence had to flee from the country, the 24th or 25th year is the earliest possible date. Thus Shishak appears to have come to the throne at most 21 or 22 years (40—28 [or 24] +4) before his expedition against Rehoboam. An inscription at the quarries of Silsilis, in Upper Egypt, records the cutting of stone in the 22d year of She- shonk I, or Shishak, for constructions in the chief temple of Thebes, where we now find a record of his conquest of Judah (Champollion, Lettres, p. 190, 191).
CHRONOLOGY
30e
CHRONOLOGY
On these grotinds we may place the accession of Shbhak at B.C. cir. 990. The evidence of Manetho's lists, compared with the monnmeDts, would place this event within a few years of this date, for they do not allow ns to pat it much before or after B.C. 1000, an approach to correctness which at this period is very valuable. See Shishak.
4. Jotiah and Pharaoh JVecAo.— The death of Joeiah can be clearly shown on Biblical evidence to have taken place in the 2l8t year before that in which the Temple was destroyed— that is, in the Jewish year ftxmi the spring of B.C. 609 to the spring of 608. Necho's first year is proved by the Apis tablets to have been the Egyptian vague year, either Janoaiy, B.C. 609-8, or probably B.C. 610-09. The expedition in opposing which Jo^ah fell (2 Kings xxiii, 29) can- not reasonably be dated earlier than Necho's second year, B.C. 609-8 or 608-7. See Nbgho.
6. JehoiaJdm and Nebuchadneuar, — In Jer. xxv, 1. the first year of Nebuchadnezzar coincides, wholly or in part, with 4 Jehoiakim ; 2 Kings xxiv, 12, the ep- och of Jeconiah's captivity and of Zedekiah^s reign lies in 8 Kebachadnezzar ; ibid, zxv, 8, the 11th of Zedekiah, the 5th month, 10th day, lies in 19 Nebu- chadnezzar; and Jer. lii, 81, the 87th of Jeconiah, 12th month, 25th day, lies ** in the year that Evil- merodach began to reign.** From these synchron- isms it follows demonstrably that, in this reckoning, Nebuchadnezzar has 45 years of reign, two years more than are assigned to him in the Astronomical Canon, where his reign of 48 years begins J£. Nab. 144= B.C. 604 ; consequently, that his reign in the Jewish reck- oning bears date from the year B.C. 606 (Browne, Ordo Seed, § 151-171, 488). Hence it results that the jrear of the taking of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple is B.C. 588. Those chronologists who, not having carefully enough collated and dbcussed the testimonies, accept unquestioned the year B.C. 604 as (hat first year of Nebuchadnezzar which coincides with 4 Jehoiakim, place the catastrophe two years later, B. C. 586. With this latitude fbr diffarence of views, the synchronism 1 Nebuchadnezzar =4 Jehoiakim = B.C. 606 or 604, has long been generally taken by chronol- ogists as the connecting link between sacred and pro- fane annals, the termiMU a quo of the ascending reck- oning. See Nebuchadnezzar.
6. ffetekiah's Synchronitmi. — In 2 Kings xviii, 18 ; six, 9, it appears that Sennacherib, king of Assyria, and Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, were both contem- porary with Hezekiah, and at the 14th year of his reign. Now, in the recently-^^covered Armenian ver- sion of Eusebias*8 Ckronich^ we have it on the au- thority of Berosus (quoted from Polyhistor) that from Sennacherib to Nebuchadnezzar were 88 years (the names and numbers are given, and agree with the expressed sum) ; this account places the accession of Sennacherib at B.C. 692, which is 20 years later than the lowest date that the Biblical numbers will allow for 14 Hezekiah. Accordingly, Niebuhr (KL hittor u, phild. Schri/ten^ i, 209) proposed to strike out that number of years fh>m the 55 assigned to Manasseh ; then the interval to 4 Jehoiakim =1 Nebuchadnezzar, would be 15+85+2-1-81+8=86. Since Niebuhr*s time an important Assyrian monument of the time of Sennacherib, interpreted by Rawlinson and Hincks, informs us that the invasion of Judaea, which in the book of Kings is said to have been in the 14th of Hez- ekiah, took place in Sennacherib's third year. Hence the interval to 4 Jehoiakim becomes 86 years. Of it- self this does not prove much, and Ewald, iii, 864 ; Thenius, p. 410 ; Bunsen, iv, 898, retain the Biblical number, which also the younger Niebuhr {Gesdi. At- sitrs u. Babeltf p. 99-105) learnedly upholds against his Other's objections. With the assistance, too, of the Canon, and of the extract from Abydenus's account of the same times, it is not difficult to bring the state- ments of Berosus into conformity with the Biblical