09 
Shishak I., named in the inscription of Silsilis as lacing already 
dead in the twenty-first and last year of that king. So 
Hor-em-bes-ef and Shishak I. may be regarded as contempo- 
raries, representing one and the same generation from 
beginning to end ; this generation beginning in B.C. 092, and 
ending in B.C. 957. And the reign of Shishak, which began 
according to the chronicle in B.C. 978 — seemingly the later 
of two distinct accessions,* — ended after twenty-one years in 
B.C. 957 ; so that the chronological place and end of his 
reign, according to the chronicle, agrees perfectly with the 
place and end of his generation, according to the inscription 
at Hammamat. And his synchronism with Solomon and 
liehoboam, according to the chronology of the Bible, is justi- 
fied by both these Egyptian reckonings.” f 
54. These are the chief points which I have ventured to 
bring forward in proof of what may be fairly considered as 
synchronisms between she histories of Israel and Egypt, and 
in confirmation of what 1 believe to be the chronology of 
the Bible. I do not say the proof is perfect, nor do I doubt 
but that some may detect weak links in my chain of evidence, 
but I think the united testimony of so many synchronisms 
may be accepted as tending to confirm the truth and accuracy 
of what is commonly called the chronology of the Bible. 
Ear be it from me to attempt to dogmatize where the light is 
not so clear as we could desire, and where different conclusions 
are arrived at by those who are equally desirous of discovering 
the truth. Of this we have a remarkable instance in two 
deeply learned writers who have given much time and attention 
to that part of chronology where sacred and secular chronology 
are commonly said to meet, about the period of the Babylonish 
Captivity in the sixth century B.C. And, strange to say, the 
divergence between the two amounts to this : that whereas Mr. 
Bosanquet considers the common chronology of that period to 
be more than twenty years in error by excess , Mr. Parker, the 
Hector of Luffincott, considers it to be the same number of 
years in error by defect. Mr. Bosanquet holds that Darius the 
Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, mentioned by Daniel, is the same 
as Darius the Persian, the son of Hystaspes, described by the 
Greek historians, and that, consequently, the common chrono- 
logy must be lowered, as I have already mentioned. | Mr. 
* Manetho, as interpreted by Brugsch, dates Shishak’s twenty-one 
years’ reign B.C. 080 — 959. 
t Egyptian Chronicles, by William Palmer, M.A., pp. 592—596. 
j Mr, Bosanquet’s theory is to be found fully set forth in many letters 
