I have shown in this series of articles that there are several pieces of evidence that the Persian Empire did not last the 200 years proposed by historians but only 21 years as described in the Old Testament. This is an idea I presented in detail in my book, The Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate. The shortened Persian Empire Period that I propose would mean that the Old Testament historical timeline would be shifted forward 180 years forward in time. This article provides archaeological evidence from the writings of David Rohl, author of Pharoahs and Kings and the writings of Peter James, author of Centuries of Darkness of this 180 year shift in the Old Testament timeline.

Archaeological Evidence during the Israelite Monarchies

David Rohl has suggested that the dating of Solomon should be moved much later in history than Conventional Biblical Chronology would indicate. The Conventional Biblical Chronology indicates that King Solomon began his reign in 971-931 B.C. According to Rohl, (Pharaohs and Kings, Page 175) this period can't possibly be when Solomon was king. Rohl observes that the wealth of that culture associated Solomon's reign as described in I Kings and II Chronicles is not apparent in Iron Age Palestine archaeology. Iron Age Palestine archaeology is more reflective of an era of impoverished conditions. Rohl references two observations from archaeologists that bolster this argument. Professor James Pritchard of Pennsylvania University describes the cities of Canaan during this period as rather meager. Megiddo, Gezer, Hazor and Jerusalem resemble villages. Their buildings are small, built from clay. Hardly the glorious architecture one would expect from King Solomon's kingdom. Dame Kathleen Kenyon (Pharoahs and the Kings, page 174) was equally dumbfounded by the findings for Canaan during the Iron Age IIA period. She made the following observations. There appeared no evidence of the riches of Solomon's court and aside from the capital their appeared to be no signs of economic prosperity. There does not appear any evidence of the fact that Solomon was this great merchant prince, no valuable imported objects could be found.

Therefore, if Solomon doesn't appear to fit in this period of time what period does Solomon seem to fit in? Consider the Phoenician civilization for a moment. When Solomon began to build the Temple during his reign he relied heavily on Hiram the King of Tyre (the King of Phoenicia) and his craftsman. Simply put Israel did not have the craftsman necessary to make the magnificent bronze pieces, the cedar or the colored fabrics needed to construct the Temple. But Phoenicia did. Therefore the archaeology of Phoenicia would be instrumental in dating the reign of Solomon. Peter James makes an interesting observation about the dating of the kingdom of Phoenicia :

According to Peter James the Phoenicians did not show a solid presence in the Western Mediterranean, based on the archaeology, until the late 8th century BC. Any finds earlier than this time were rare. Ancient historians placed the construction of Carthage by Tyre (a major port city of the Phoenicians) between 846 and 746 B.C. One ancient historian, Menander of Tyre, records that an expedition left Tyre in the seventh year of King Pygmalion's reign. According to Peter James, Pygmalion can be dated within a few years using the Tyrian king list and Assyrian records and the records of the voyage to Carthage in the timeframe of 805-799 B.C. (Centuries of Darkness, page 53)

Therefore from this information it would appear that Phoenician civilization is not present in Canaan until 850-750 B.C. Therefore Solomon would have to be present during this period to interact with Phoenicia so he could build the temple. This evidence is quite consistent with the Fourth Day:Why the Bible is Historically Accurate Chronology of the Bible since it dates the reign of Solomon from 825-785 B.C.

Archaeological Evidence of Shishak

The invasion of Shishak in Judah and Israel has long been used as a "hard point" in dating the Judaen kings after Solomon. The Conventional Biblical Chronology dates the reign of Shishak from 945-924 B.C. Peter James cites evidence that this dating may be in error. He relates that two statues of two Egyptian kings Shoshenq I and his son Osorkon I were found in Byblos, a city in Phoenicia. Each of these statues had an inscription added by the local Phoenician king, Abibaal. Therefore, it appears that Abibaal was contemporary with Shoshenq I and Osorkon I. Shipitbaal, two kings after Abibaal can be dated to the year 740 B.C. because that is the year he paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria. Peter James also references work by paleographer Ronald Wallenfels that also indicated that Shoshenq I's reign had to be much later. According to James:

Wallenfels paleographic dating matches the Assyrian records of a Shipitbaal in 740 BC. Abibaal, a king that reigned two kings later, must have reigned very near 800 BC. Therefore the paleographic and the Assyrian information synchronize together to show that Shoshenq I (a contemporary of Abibaal) must be dated 125 years later than the conventional chronology. (Centuries of Darkness, page 251)

According to the Old Testament Shishak (Shoshenq I) invaded Judah during the 5th year in the reign of king Rehoboam of Judah. The Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate Biblical Chronology dates this event in the year 780 B.C. Peter James' estimate would mean that the reign of Shoshenq I would be 800-779 B.C., so his archaeological findings would synchronize well with the Fourth Day Biblical Chronology.

My name is Darren Thompson and I am a chemical engineer that has worked in the rocket propulsion industry for over 15 years. I hold 10 patents and am the author of over 20 papers in rocket propellant development. He has written two books, "The Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate" and "Why the Bible is Historically Accurate (2nd Edition)" which are available at amazon.com or lulu.com. You can check out my book website at The Fourth Day