The currently accepted framework for Egyptian chronology during the Third Intermediate Period is supported by a key synchronism with biblical history. The identification of the biblical Shishak with Shoshenk I of the 22nd Dynasty is the only generally accepted synchronism with western Asia from the beginning of the TIP until the late 8th century and has been one of the major factors in determining Egypt's high chronology. This paper questions the validity of the identification and proposes that it should no longer stand as an obstacle to a radical revision of the chronology of the Third Intermediate Period.** JOHN J. BIMSON Introduction The Importance Recent research into Egypt's Third Intermediate Period (hereafter TIP), comprising the 21st to 25th Dynasties, has revealed a number of chronological anomalies which throw the conventional scheme of TIP history into serious doubt. In an early discussion of the problem it was noted that: Taken together such `anomalies' might suggest that there were far greater overlaps between the 20th to 26th dynasties than the conventional chronology allows. Both Peter James and David Rohl have since elabo- rated on this issue, publishing in outline an alternative chronology for the TIP. However, an increased over- lapping of dynasties within the TIP inevitably shortens the period and lowers its starting-date. Thus any revision of TIP chronology which aims to remove the anomalies will also pull down the dates for the preceding eras of Egyptian history. In short, a revised scheme for the TIP requires a revised chronology for the whole of pharaonic history before the Saite 26th Dynasty. The New Chronology, being developed largely in the pages of this journal, is precisely such a revision. David Rohl has recently extended the New Chronology as far back as the 12th Dyna~ty.~ However compelling the case may be for the New JACF VOL. 6 (199293) Pages of the Question Chronology, one factor can be expected to remain an obstacle to its widespread consideration. I refer to the identification of Shoshenk I (Hedjkheperre-setepenre Shoshenk), founder of the Libyan 22nd Dynasty, with the biblical `Shishak king of Egypt' who invaded Judah in the 5th year of Rehoboam (I Kings 14:25-26 and I1 Chronicles 12:2-9). Since this identification has long been axiomatic among Egyptologists and biblical scholars alike,5 it is important to examine carefully the evidence on which it rests. Superfkially the identification seems assured by a combination of three factors: (i) the kings' names are evidently similar; (ii) Hedjkheperre Shoshenk has left an inscription attesting that he campaigned in Palestine, and (iii) there is harmony between Sho- shenk's place in Egyptian chronology and the date indicated by the biblical data for Shishak's invasion of Judah. However, a close examination of these three factors reveals that things are not so simple. Before testing them, however, it will be helpful to outline the nature of Shoshenk's inscription and to sketch briefly the origin of his identification with Shishak. ** This paper is an updated version of an article (with the same title) by the author published in Chronology & Catastrophism Review VIII (1986), pp. 36-46. 19-32 19 Part One Shoshenk's and his Identification It may have been only a few months after undertaking figures List with Shishak face to the right, where the king; himself his expedition into Palestine that the pharaoh Hedj- kheperre Shoshenk initiated a building programme at Kamak. His plan (as deduced from a rock-stela in the quarries of Gebel es-Silsila, from which the stone was to be taken) was to construct a court and pylon on the west of the great Hypostyle Hall built during the 19th Dynasty. The work would have given the Temple of Amun a new and magnificent frontage facing the Nile. Shoshenk died before the project was completed, but the work done included the so-called Bubastite Portal. This was the southem side-entrance into the new court, constructed between the Second Pylon (of Ramesses 11) and a small temple of Ramesses 111. On the exterior south face of this portal, continuing eastwards partially along the south wall of the Hypostyle Hall, is the scene commemorating Shoshenk's successes in Palestine. The relief shows the god Amun, accompanied by a female figure representing `Victorious Thebes', leading captives for presentation to the king. The two (perceived only in vaGe -outline6) smites host of cowering foes. Each captive being led to the king by Amun and `Victorious Thebes' is represented by a human head and shoulders surmounting a name-ring. Five rows of captives are led by each figure, the lower rows being badly damaged. An eleventh row, which extended along the base of the scene to the right of the centre, is almost entirely lost. Although there were originally over 150 name-rings, the number of places listed was somewhat less than this, since some names occupy two (occasionally even three) rings. A dis- cussion of the names which can still be read, and their identification (sometimes speculative) with places known from the Bible or other texts, can be found in Kenneth Kitchen's very full treatment. Although it was suggested in the late 19th century that Shoshenk's list may have been compiled artificial- ly from campaign lists left by his predecessors, it is now clear that this is not the case. The campaign relief of Shoshenk I at Kurnuk (left half) showing the list of captured cities. [Photo: D. Rohl] 20 JACF VOL. 6 In point of fact, Shoshenq's list is the most original and non-derivative list in the whole corpus of 40 or 50 assorted lists, having runs of names attested nowhere else in these.. . . The orthography of Shoshenq's list also distinguishes it sharply from all its predecesso rs... . In view of its assumed connection with an event in Old Testament history, the list is thus regarded as a document of very great historical value. But when and how was its connection with the Old Testament first proposed? The first translator of Shoshenk's list, and also the first to proclaim its biblical associations, was Jean FranGois Champollion (1790-1832), who claimed the discovery of the key to the decipherment of Egypt's hieroglyphic script in 1822. Shoshenk's list was one of the inscriptions docu- mented by Champollion and Ippolito Rosellini during their joint project to record Egypt's monuments in the late 1820s. However, in spite of Champollion's rapid progress in the translation of Egyptian texts, his under- standing of Shoshenk's list was, by today's standards, relatively unsophisticated. Instead of recognising all the name-rings as the names of towns and cities in Palestine, he believed the list included `the leaders of more than thirty vanquished Among the names, he read No. 29 as `Ioudahamalek', which he took to be the name `Judah' followed by `the kingdom' (cf. Heb. ha(m)maZclith). Consequently, he translated this name-ring as meaning `the kingdom of the Jews, or of Judah'. Champollion therefore concluded that Judah was among the many `nations' which the pharaoh claimed to have conquered. The pharaoh's name was rendered by Champollion as `Sheschonck', and he immediately recognised here the Manethonian name Sesonch(os)is. He then connec- ted the conquest of `Judah' by this pharaoh with the invasion of Rehoboam's kingdom in I Kings 14, and thus saw the identity of `Sheschonck' with both Ses- onch(os)is and the biblical Shishak as `confirmed in the most satisfactory manner'. Champollion's reading of name No. 29 was sub- sequently challenged by Heinrich Brugsch, who made a new and detailed study of the list, producing identi- fications of the names which have, in several cases, stood the test of time. Brugsch identified names both before and after No. 29 as belonging to Israel as well as Judah, and therefore felt that its position in the campaign list contradicted Champollion's reading. He also argued that the second part of the name could not represent the Hebrew malclith (= kingdom), and that it corresponded instead to melek (= king). Finally, he argued that the whole construction assumed by Cham- pollion's translation was grammatically inadmissible, Brugsch preferred to read Jehud-ha(m)melek, and to treat it as the name of a town. l2 However, Champollion's original reading (or variants thereof) continued to be defended (e.g. by JACF VOL. 6 The controversial name-ring No. 29 containing the hieroglyphic signs Y-w-d-h-m-`-l-k plus the hill coun- try determinative. [Photo: D. Rohl] Reginald Poole 13), some adopting Brugsch's view to the extent that they preferred `king of Judah' to Champollion's `kingdom of Judah'. With this reading, the head surmounting the name `seemed to furnish a portrait of Rehoboam', a view which became `as popular as most flagrant errors'. l4 These are the words of W. Max Muller, who was the first (in 1888) to propose the reading now generally accepted - namely a place-name, Yad-ha(m)melek. l5 Literally this is Hebrew for `hand of the King', but it could also be taken figuratively (cf. I Samuel 15:12 & I1 Samuel 18:18) to mean `monument (or stela) of the King'. l6 This place-name is otherwise unattested, but it would seem, from its position in the list (see Fig. 2), to refer to a location somewhere in the north-west coastal plain of the kingdom of Israel.I7 The rejection of Champollion's reading of the name No. 29 did not, however, weaken the identifica- tion of Shoshenk with biblical Shishak. A considerable number of names in the list had come to be identified with towns in Israel and Judah, establishing that Sho- shenk's forces had indeed campaigned in Palestine. In addition, a scheme of dates for Egypt's kings had been developed and refined to the point where the identifi- cation seemed to be confirmed chronologically. We will return to these two factors below to assess their precise implications. But firstly, we will examine the most obvious similarity between the two kings - their names. 21 Part Two The Names of Shoshenk and Shishak There is undoubtedly some superfcial resemblance between the Egyptian name Shoshenk and the Hebrew rendering of the name of Rehoboam's enemy, Shishak. The question we must address is whether the resem- blance is anything more than superficial; i.e. are the names sufficiently close to confirm the identity of Shoshenk I and the Egyptian king of the biblical account? The vocalisation of the Egyptian hieroglyphs as Shoshenk (or Shoshenq) rather than the older render- ing, Sheshonk, is based on the spelling of the name Susinku (Akk. Su-si-in-ku) in Assyrian records from the 7th century BC. (The previously preferred render- ing of the name Sheshonk was based on Manetho's Sesonch(os)is, which, as Kitchen remarks, '* probably shows metathesis, i.e. an interchange of the sounds of the first two syllables.) Egyptologists have differed over how close the Hebrew name is to Egyptian Shoshenk and Assyrian Susinku. Sir Alan Gardiner plainly felt that the Hebrew name was incompatible with the hieroglyphic original: `the Old Testament gives Shishak wrongly'. l9 On the other hand, Kitchen2' has defended the plausibility of the Hebrew rendering. Concerning the vocalisation ShosheWSusinku, he says: `With this agrees the original vocalisation of the Hebrew as Shushaq (rather than Shishaq)', referring to the text of I Kings 14:25. Fig. 1: Right side of a throne base which once carried a statue of Shoshenk I. The block is inscribed with the prenomen and nomen of the king and a Phoenician inscription of Abibaal of Byblos. The inscription, found at Byblos, spells out the Egyptian king's name as Sh-sh-n-k, i.e. not as Sh-sh-k. [After: P. Montet: Byblos et l'Egypte I, (Paris, 1928)] Fig. 2: Fragment of a stela from Megiddo bearing the cartouches of Shoshenk I - the spelling of the king's nomen is also Sh-sh-n-k, i.e. including the letter `n'. [After C. S. Fisher: The Excavations of Armageddon (1929), Fig. 7b] It is true that the Hebrew here is p@W, but this in- stance is unusual. In all other cases (I Kings 11:40, I1 Chronicles 12:2, 5 (twice), 7 and 9) the Hebrew is @`!$ (i.e.the usual Shishak). The Masoretes (the rab- binic textual authorities of the 7th and 8th centuries of our era) clearly regarded the name in I Kings 14:25 as the one in error, because they offer Shishak as the correct reading in a marginal note. It is therefore by no means certain that Shushaq was the original Hebrew form of the name. Indeed, there are enough established instances of a scribal error turning an original yodh (as in Shishak) into a waw (as in Shushak) to make it quite probable that Shishak is the original form, Shushak being a corruption. 21 Then there is the omission of the `n' from the Hebrew name. Kitchen points to several instances of the `n' being dropped from cartouches of the name Shoshenk during the 22nd Dynasty." Two of these involve the prenomen Hedjkheperre, i.e. the prenomen borne by the Shoshenk normally identified as the biblical Shishak; and two other instances are associated with his known relatives. It is therefore possible that the Hebrew name Shishak represents this abbreviated form of the Egyptian. However, Kitchen's case would be stronger if there were instances of the `n' being dropped in non-Egyptian sources. The Assyrian Su- sinku preserves it, and it is retained in the Greek form employed by Manetho and his excerptors (see also Figs. 1 & 2). Therefore we should probably not expect the Israelite scribes to omit it. In summary, we may say that if one sets out with the presupposition that Shoshenk and Shishak are the same person, one can present arguments for interpret- ing the Hebrew name as derived from the Egyptian. However, these arguments are by no means conclusive, JACF VOL. 6 22 or even compelling. There are good grounds for believing that `Shishak' is the original vocalisation of the Hebrew, and that `Shushak' in I Kings 14:25 is a scribal error. There is also no reason to believe that the name Shoshenk was familiar in its abbreviated form (i.e. written without the `n' hieroglyph) to non- Egyptian scribes. It is therefore impossible to prove that the names are the same, and there remains an equally strong possibility that they are not. Certainly the names alone can not establish the identity of their bearers. 23 But, of course, the case for identity has never rested on the names alone. We therefore turn to what many will regard as a much stronger argument, the supposed similarity of the two kings' actions in Palestine. Part Three Shoshenk and Shishak in Palestine Under this heading we consider how closely the Egyptian and biblical records correspond. Writers anxious to find extra-biblical confirmation of biblical history have often played down the differences be- tween the Old Testament account of Shishak's invasion and the evidence of Shoshenk's list of conquered cities. Thus Jakob Politeyan wrote: ... There is complete harmony between Shi- shak's inscription (sic!) and the Bible record. 24 This is quite untrue. There is in fact considerable disharmony, and the differences between the two records deserve serious attention. The biblical accounts of Shishak's invasion (I Kings 14:25-6 and I1 Chronicles 12:2-9) both speak only of a campaign against Judah, the kingdom of Solomon's son Rehoboam. But Shoshenk's list of cities suggests that his focus of interest was totally different. While it is not correct to claim, as some have done,z that no towns belonging to Judah appear in the list, the following remark by Yohanan Aharoni is certainly valid: It is clear from the Egyptian text that the main objectives of the expedition were not the towns of Judah and Jerusalem, but rather the kingdom of Israel on the one hand and the Negeb of Judah on the other.26 This conclusion raises a problem to which there are three aspects. These will be examined in turn. (1) Shishak and Jeroboam were allies On the basis of the biblical material, one would not expect an invasion of Israel by Shishak. During Solo- mon's lifetime Jeroboam was already perceived as a threat to his rule, and so Solomon planned to kill him: ... but Jeroboam arose and fled into Egypt, to Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon. (I Kings 11:40) Thus Jeroboam found asylum at the court of Shishak, JACF VOL. 6 and, according to the Septuagint version of I Kings 12, he married either a sister of Shishak's own wife, or (more probably) one of his daughters." In the light of this, it is somewhat surprising to find that the supposed Egyptian record of Shishak's invasion attests an extensive campaign into Jeroboam's kingdom. Theodore H. Robinson remarked: What does this invasion of the north imply? Jeroboam was Sheshonk's (sic!) protege - ac- cording to one account his son-in-law. It seems highly improbable that the Egyptian king should have attacked a person he so favoured....28 Various suggestions have been made to account for this - none of them satisfactory. Poole suggested that the Israelite cities in Shoshenk's list were ones which remained loyal to Rehoboam, and that Jeroboam had therefore appealed to Shoshenk to capture them for him.29 Loyalty to Rehoboam on the part of so many Israelite cities is highly unlikely in view of the wide- spread popular rejection of his rule in Israel, portrayed in I Kings 12:l-18. A variation on this explanation, put forward by Robinson, seems equally improbable. For him, the Israelite towns in the list were ones which Rehoboam had captured from Jeroboam, so that Sho- shenk was aiding Jeroboam by recovering them for him: Jeroboam, confined in the far north and in desperate straits, is rescued by his patron and overlord. 30 This is in flat contradiction to the biblical account. The capture of towns in Israel as far north as the Esdraelon Plain, and on both sides of the Jordan, would have amounted to a virtual reconquest of Israel itself; yet it is plain from I Kings 12:21-4 that Rehoboam never launched any campaign of reconquest, being prevented from doing so by the prophet Shemaiah. A slightly more plausible argument, offered by MUller3l and Nic01,~~ is that Shoshenk's list includes not only cities captured in battle, but also any which paid tribute or in some other way were considered subject to him. Assuming that his protege, Jeroboam, 23 of the identification of the Egyptian pharaoh Shoshenk with the biblical pharaoh Shishak. If Jerusalem had been recorded in the Shoshenk campaign list, it would appear in Row 2 - between the name-rings of Gibeon (on the left) and Mahanaim (on the right). [Photo: D had asked him for protection against Rehoboam, this would have been sufficient reason for Shoshenk to include Israelite cities in his list, since Jeroboam had acknowledged some degree of dependence upon Egypt. While this is not impossible, it merely heightens the question as to why Jerusalem is not included in the list, since it certainly submitted and paid tribute, although it was not conquered in battle (I Kings 14:25-6 and I1 Chronicles 12:l-9). We will return to this problem below. The inadequacy of the above explanations is now generally acknowledged, and more recent scholars do not doubt that Israel was invaded. As Herbert Donner remarks, the campaign there was extensive: Shoshenq reached the plain of Megiddo in the north, even sent troops into the region east of the Jordan, and so must have caused severe distress to the kingdom of Israel. 33 So what is the explanation for this event? We may . . . hazard a guess that Jeroboam failed to keep certain promises he had made to his former protector. 34 This is, of course, a possibility; it is also conceivable that Shoshenk was simply prepared to override friend- ship or break an alliance for the sake of political gain.35 But, as David Payne admits in the above quotation, when we make such a suggestion we are merely hazarding a guess. There is nothing in the biblical account which requires, or even hints at, such a change of circumstances. We should always bear in mind that such conjectures are necessary only because 24 Rohl] (2) There is no invasion of Israel in the biblical accounts It is entirely consistent with the Bible's portrayal of Shishak as Jeroboam's ally that it contains no reference to an Egyptian invasion of Israel. Yet we have seen that, in recent assessments of Shoshenk's cam- paign, he `must have caused severe distress' to the northern kingdom (Donner, quoted above). Siegfried Herrmann remarks: Jeroboam must have been very hard pressed, but we hear nothing about this in the Old Testament account.36 What is the conventional explanation for this silence? Kitchen assumes, following Martin Noth, that it is accounted for by `the primary interest of the Kings historian (and a forti- ori, of the Chronicler) in what befell Judah more- than Israel'.37 This is also the view of Hendrik Jagersma, who says the silence of the Old Testament `must be ascribed to the fact that the Deuteronomist [i.e. the writer of I and I1 Kings] and even more the Chronicler primarily concentrated on events in Judah. Israel appears only rarely, and then above all in a polemical context'. 38 It is surprising that scholars as familiar with the Old Testament as Kitchen and Jagersma should accept this patently false explanation. While it is true that the writer of the Books of Chronicles is primarily interest- ed in Judah, and largely neglects its northern neigh- bour, this does not apply at all to the writer of the history found in I and I1 Kings (conventionally known as the Deuteronomistic historian, or simply the Deuter- onomist). Even a superficial reading of the relevant part of that history should be sufficient to disprove such an assumption. Of the chapters dealing with the parallel histories of Israel and Judah (I Kings 1225 to I1 Kings 16:20), approximately 650 verses are devoted to events in Israel and only 155 to events in Judah! The implication of these statistics is fully supported by a close study of the way the writer handles his material; this shows that `for the time of the contemporary Northern and Southern Kingdoms, Judah is not the mainstream interest of the Deuteronomist. This is found in the history of the North'.39 Thus we could reasonably expect him to mention Shishak's invasion of the northern kingdom if one actually occurred. Indeed, we can take the argument further, since it would have suited the Deuteronomist's purposes per- fectly to have related an invasion of Israel by Shishak. Before recording the Shishak incident, he reports at JACF VOL. 6 length on the failings of Jeroboam (I Kings 12:25- 13:lO & 33-4) and the judgement consequently passed on him by God through the prophet Ahijah (I Kings 14:7-16). Shoshenk's deep penetration into Israel, with its necessarily serious effects (cf. Donner and Herr- mann, quoted above), would have made an ideal sequel to this, providing an initial confirmatory fulfilment of the prophet's words, and foreshadowing their total fulfilment by an Assyrian invasion some 200 years later. In I1 Kings 17, after describing Israel's final demise in 722 BC, the Deuteronomist summarises the nation's history, speaking of how God `afflicted them and gave them into the hand of spoilers' (I1 Kings 17:20) because of their idolatry, which he traces back to Jeroboam's sins (I1 Kings 17:21-3). In short, an Egyptian invasion of Israel in the reign of Jeroboam would have provided an excellent illustration of his theme. Thus, both the content and function of the Deuteronomistic history would lead us to expect the inclusion, not the omission, of an Egyptian invasion of Jeroboam's kingdom, if one actually occurred. The statements of Kitchen and Jagersma are glib and misleading. I131211109 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (3) Jerusalem and Judah's fortified cities are absent from Shoshenk's campaign list 11 Far more serious than either of the two problems discussed so far is Shoshenk's failure to include Jeru- salem in his list of cities. The biblical account relates: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In the fifth year of king Rehoboam, Shishak king 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; he took away everything. He also took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made ... (I Kings 14:25-6; I1 Chronicles 12:2-3,9). 111 Judah's wealthy capital features as the prime target of Shishak's expedition, but, as Herrmann notes, when we turn to Hedjkheperre Shoshenk's campaign list inscrip- tion at Kamak: 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 It is remarkable that Jerusalem does not seem to be mentioned on it, and does not therefore belong among the places seized . . .40 Rubuti G[azal 1 1 lM[akkedahl] Inyo I-------------------- The Nine Bows ------------------- Aijalon Bethhoron Mahanaim [Lost] Hapharaim Bethshan Tanaach lKiria:aim?l GiPeon I Sha;ld[yll Adyaim I Rey I Shyem I Fig. 3: Rows I to 3 of the Shoshenk I campaign list. Using the bustrophedon principle for reading the list, the order of march is from top right to left (starting with the `Nine Bows' - the traditional enemies , of Egypt); the first section of the route is Gaza to Rubuti; then down and left to right from Aijalon to Tanaach); and, on the third row, right to left aguin lfrom Megiddo to Bethtappuah). [Illustration: D. Rohl] JACF VOL. 6 25 Fig. 4: The campaign route of Hedjkheperre Shoshenk I superimposed upon the political map of Palestine at the time of the Schism, showing the fortified cities built to defend Judah against Egyptian attack from the south. [Illustration: D. Rohl] Rehoboam's A. Bethlehem B. Etam C. Tekoa D. Bethzur E. Hebron F. Ziph G. Adoraim H. Lachish Shoshenk ROW I 1-9. Nine Bows 10. Introduction 11. G[azal 12. M[akkedah] 13. Rubuti ROW 11 14. Aijalon 15. Kiriathaim? 16. Bethhoron 17. Gibeon 18. Mahanaim 19. Shaud[y]? 20. Lost 21. Adoraim? 22. Hapharaim 23. Rehob 24. Bethshan 25. Shunem 26. Tanaach ROW I11 27. Megiddo 28. 'Adar? 29. Yadhamelek 30. [Heblel? 31. Honim? 32. `Arum 33. Borim 34. Gath-padalla 35. Yalima 36. Betharuma 37. Kekry? Fortified Cities I. Mareshah J. Moresheth-Gath K. Adullam L. Socoh M. Azekah N. Zorah 14. Aijalon 1's City-List 38. Socoh 39. Bethtappuah? 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. ROW IV Lost Sesedj[ ...I ? Lost Lost Lost Lost Lost Bethsabu[ma] Lost Lost Lost Lost Abel[-Meholah?] [Plenuel Hedeshet Succoth? Adam[ ah] Zemaraim [Milgdol (Shechem) [Tilrzah [...]nar Lost Lost Lost H[ ...]p en `The Valley' ROW V The omission is not to be explained away by the rela- tively poor state of the Bubastite Portal inscription today. It is extremely unlikely that Jerusalem ever featured in any of the sections now damaged. As Kitchen points out: The only probable gaps that might once have contained Jcrusalern are in row IV - II:20 was probably in the Jordan Valley or eastern Palestine, and V:61-3 between Zemaraim and Jezreel (i.e. in Israel). And if row IV repre- sented some foray by a task-force going off €om the main army, then it is unlikely that Jerusalem even featured in this row. The other rows with lacunae (VIII-XI) were all occupied by place-names in the south and south-west, far from north-central Judah. 41 26 The nearest place to Jerusalem mentioned in the list is Gibeon (name No. 17), i.e. el-Jib, some 9 km northwest of the capital. It is therefore assumed that it was here that Shoshenk awaited Rehoboam's decision and received Jerusalem's tribute. 42 Donner suggests that Jerusalem and other cities of Judah do not feature in the list because when Rehoboam handed over the Temple and palace treasures he did so `in order to purchase his domain's independence'. 43 This ignores I1 Chronicles 12:4 which relates that Shishak `took the fortificd cities of Judah' as he advanced on Jerusalem. These Judaean cities ought therefore to appear in the list. They will be discussed in more detail below. But Donner's view does not explain the absence of Jerusalem either. An ancient scribe would almost certainly not have recognised Donner's distinc- tion between handing over a city's wealth to purchase JACF VOL. 6 independence and the payment of tribute as a sign of submission. In any case TI Chronicles 12:8 makes it clear that the result of the payment was not indepen- dence but `service', i.e. vassaldom to Egypt. Kitchen acknowledges this fact,44 but nevertheless seems to suggest that Jerusalem does not appear in Shoshenk's list because, although cowed, it remained `uncon- quered'.4s But in what meaningful sense can a city which handed over all its wealth to a foreign ruler and submitted to vassaldom (Kitchen's own word!) be described as `unconquered'? True, Jerusalem had escaped destruction, but it would be quite unreasonable to suggest that Egyptian monarchs only listed cities which they actually destroyed. It is generally acknow- ledged that their lists include all places over which they could claim dominion.46 The plain fact, from which there is no escape, is that Jerusalem submitted to Shishak; therefore, given the identification of Shishak with Shoshenk, Jerusalem ought to appear in Shoshenk's list. Its absence is a major problem for the conventional identification. As mentioned above, the Chronicler states in his account that, on his way to Jerusalem, Shishak `took the fortified cities of Judah' (I1 Chronicles 12:4). He is evidently referring to the 15 cities listed previously as built (or fortified) by Rehoboam for the defence of Judah (I1 Chronicles 11:1-5).47 As can be seen from the map opposite, these protected the heart of Rehoboam's kingdom on the west, south and east; other forts lay at important road junctions. The absence from the Chronicler's list of any towns to the north, to protect Rehoboam from his hostile neighbour Jeroboam, is striking and can have only one expla- nation: when the kingdom split, Rehoboam must have retained Gezer, lower Beth-Horon and Baalath - towns which Solomon had built (I Kings 9: 15- 18), presum- ably to guard the northern approach to Jerusalem via the Ascent of Beth-Horon.48 If we add these three towns to those listed by the Chronicler, we therefore have a total of 18. In the light of-the unequivocal statement that Shishak `took the fortified cities of Judah', we would expect to identify a great many of these in Shoshenk's list - if it really records the same campaign. Yet of the 15 forts named in I1 Chronicles 11:5-10, only one appears in the Egyptian text (Aijalon, No. 14). Of the three which we may add from I Kings 9:15-18, again we find only one in Shoshenk's list (No. 16 is a Beth-Horon).49 This is hardly the degree of correspondence we would expect if Shoshenk was the invader who `took the fortified cities of Judah'. To account for the fact that only Aijalon is listed by Shoshenk from among the Chronicler's 15 towns, Kitchen suggests that Rehoboam fortified thcm after Shoshenk's attack." There are three reasons why this argument will not work. Firstly, the Chronicler twice mentions these fortified towns before narrating the Shishak invasion (I1 Chronicles 11512, 23), and JACF VOL. 6 obviously understands them as part of the process by which Rehoboam established and strengthened his rule; he further states that Shishak's invasion occurred after Rehoboam `forsook the law of the Lord', which in turn happened `when the rule of Rehoboam was established and was strong' (I1 Chronicles 12:l-2). The order of events is therefore quite clear and has significance for the Chronicler. This is not to be treated as a `dischro- nologised' narrative and the events rearranged at will. Secondly, it is extremely unlikely that Rehoboam would have ruled for the 4-5 years which preceded Shishak's invasion without fortifying his kingdom. In the person of Jeroboam he had a hostile neighbour to the north (I Kings 14:30), and Egypt, to the southwest, had given asylum to that neighbour. In the light of this he would have been very foolish not to fear an Egyptian attack and to take immediate precautions. Thirdly, is it likely that Rehoboam would have been allowed to fortify the southern and western approaches to his kingdom after he had become a vassal of Egypt? Such a move in that context would surely have been an act of rebellion. Theoretically a supporter of the conventional view could grant that the invasion took place after Rehoboam's forts had been built, while arguing that, when the Chronicler wrote of Shishak taking `the fortified cities of Judah', he was referring in fact only to Aijalon and Beth-horon (i.e. the two places which have been identified in Shoshenk's list), and did not mean to imply that all, or even most, were captured. Although this seems a most improbable reading of I1 Chronicles 12:4, it is perhaps theoretically possible. However, it brings us to a further difficulty. The inclusion of Aijalon and Beth-Horon in Shoshenk's list indicates that he penetrated the central hills from the coastal plain along the ancient and well-worn route known as `the Ascent of Beth-Horon'.51 Near the western approach to this route lay Gezer, one of Solomon's chief fortified towns on the border with Philistia.s2 As argued above, Rehoboam must have retained this strategically important city for Judah, along with Lower Beth-horon and Baalath. It is therefore inconceivable that Shoshenk would have attempted this route into the hills without first capturing Gezer, if his invasion did indeed correspond to that of Shishak. Yet it seems likely, as Gardiner and Kitchen have affirmed (against earlier statements based on a misreading), that Gezer does not appear in Shoshenk's list. s3 To sum up, there is not a good correspondence between the biblical accounts of Shishak's invasion and the evidence of Shoshenk's list of cities. In fact, the differences amount to serious problems €or the usual identification of the two kings. In particular, Shoshenk's failure to mention Jerusalem is a major stumbling block. Whether or not ad hoc explanations may be adopted for the other difficulties, this remains totally inexplicable. 54 27 Part F o u r Shoshenk's Place in Egyptian Chronology The currently accepted dating of Shoshenk I depends to a large degree on his identification with the biblical Shishak. Independent (e.g. astronomical) criteria for establishing his dates do not exist. Thus EdwinThiele, speaking of his own chronology for the Hebrew kings, laments: If Egyptian chronology of the ninth and tenth centuries BC could be established upon its own secure and absolute basis, the exact synchronism of I Kings 14:25, describing Shishak's attack on Jerusalem in the fifth year of Rehoboam, would provide the final answer as to the accuracy of the dates here set forth. But nothing substantial from that period in Egypt is at present available. 55 Instead, the date established by Thiele for the 5th year of Rehoboam (925 BC) has become the fixed point by which Shoshenk's reign is dated. Thus Kitchen, who (along with many others) accepts Thiele's statement of Hebrew chronology, writes that Shoshenk I: ... can be closely dated by a synchronism with the Hebrew monarchy, whose dates in turn are closely fixed with reference to Assyrian chronology. 56 Kitchen then proceeds to use the Shoshenk/Shishak synchronism to date the reigns, not only of the 22nd Dynasty, but also of the 21st. It would be quite wrong, however, to conclude from this that Shoshenk 1's dates are wholly dependent on his assumed identity with Shishak. The precise dates now assigned to Shoshenk I are dependent on this assumed identity, but the identity was supposedly confirmed at an earlier stage by an approximate synchronism between the two kings. However, before outlining how that approximate synchronism was arrived at, it will help to give the debate some historical perspective if we take one step further back, to before Champollion deciphered the hieroglyphs. Before Champollion Even before Champollion's decipherment of the hieroglyphs, the study of Egyptian chronology had been pursued in some detail on the basis of Manetho and other ancient writers who dealt with the history of Egypt. To get an impression of the progress which had been made by the eve of Champollion's dramatic breakthrough, we can do no better than turn to the impressively thorough treatment by James Prichard. Prichard was a scholar of immense learning who wrote prolifically on anthropology, ancient history and myth- ology. In 1819, only a few years before Champollion's discovery, he published An Analysis of Egyptian Mythology: to which is subjoined A Critical Examina- tion of the Remains of Egyptian Chronology.57 The latter part of his work was one of the most sophisti- cated and sensible treatments of Egyptian chronology to appear before the decipherment of the hieroglyphs. Already in Prichard's day the Persian conquest of Egypt was (correctly) dated to 525 BC. `From this period', wrote Prichard, `we commence our reckoning, and compute upwards towards the more obscure ages'. 58 Therefore, beginning with the 26th Dynasty which terminated with the Persian conquest, Prichard worked backwards through time, carefully assessing the chronological information provided by the various ancient sources. For the period of interest to us, these sources are primarily Julius Africanus (early 3rd century AD) and Eusebius (early 4th century AD), i.e. the two main transmitters of Manetho's framework of dynasties and monarchs; also Syncellus, a much later (9th century) writer who produced a list of reigns based on Man- etho's material, and Herodotus (5th century BC), who provides some detailed information on the reign- lengths of the 26th Dynasty.59 Other ancient writers provide additional information on the relevant period, though rarely of a precise chronological nature. Unfortunately, as is well established, the above- mentioned sources often do not agree on the reign- lengths which they record, or even over the number of kings assigned to particular dynasties.60 In the days before their information could be checked against inscriptional material, the selection of figures from these writers was a precarious exercise, involving a large degree of subjectivity. It was therefore inevitable that Prichard's attempt to reconstruct the chronology, although as objective in its approach as one could wish, involved speculation and error. Prichard wrongly included the `proto-Saites' Ammeris, Stephinates, Nechepsos and Nechao (Niku I), in the independent 26th Dynasty, and adopted Eusebius's figures for their reigns. For Psamtek I onwards he preferred the figures preserved by Hero- dotus. These two factors combined to give him an inflated total for the 26th Dynasty's independent rule, the beginning of which he consequently placed in 701 BC instead of 664 BC. Adding to this the totals provided by Eusebius figures for the rulers of Dynasties 21 to 25, and treating those dynasties as entirely consecutive, Prichard arrived at 1012 BC for the start of the 21st Dynasty. We need not concern ourselves with his treatment of earlier dynasties, for it 28 JACF VOL. 6 was within the 21st that Prichard located the biblical Shishak. Before going further, it should be pointed out that Prichard was not primarily concerned to identify Shishak, or any other pharaoh mentioned in the biblical histones. However, he did frequently look to the biblical references to Egyptian kings to cross-check his emerging chronology. It must also be borne in mind that Prichard was working before the discovery of important Assyrian texts and the decipherment of cuneiform, which brought Assyrian chronology to bear on that of the Old Testament. Synchronisms between the reigns of Assyrian monarchs and those of the kings of Israel and Judah have, since 1857, greatly elucidated the interpretation of the Bible's chronological data. Working without the benefit of those synchronisms, Prichard arrived at dates for the early Hebrew mon- archy period which were some 60 years too high. Thus he dated Shishak's invasion of Judah to 985 BC, compared with the modem dating of 925 BC. Among Manetho's list of kings of the 21st Dynasty, none bears a name strikingly similar to the Hebrew Shishak. However, the year 985 BC fell close to Prichard's date for the death of the first king of the dynasty, Smendes (Egy. Nesubanebdjed), and the acces- sion of his successor, Psusennes I (986 BC). Prichard felt that the name Psusennes `bears some resemblance' to the Hebrew Shishak,61 but he did not particularly favour the identification. Instead, he referred to the list of Egyptian kings transmitted by Syncellus, in which the predecessor of Psusennes (there spelt Psuenos) is not Smendes but `Soussakeim', of whom Syncellus wrote that he: ... overcame the Libyans, Ethiopians and Troglodytes, and all the country from Egypt to Jerusalem, which he plundered. Why Syncellus placed a king of this name at this point in his tables is not known for certain. Perhaps Syn- cellus himself was following the lead of an extended biblical chronology. His scheme often departs drastic- ally from those of Manetho's earlier editors, and his information is clearly garbled at many points - this being one example. Be that as it may, this particular piece of information suited Prichard's scheme almost perfectly. He concluded: It thus becomes probable that Syncellus was correct in his conjecture that this Soussakeim was the Shishak of the Hebrews. The invasion of Judaea by Shishak may be dated, according to a computation which follows the chronology of the Scriptures, in the year BC 985; which is one year after the death of Smedes [Smendes], according to Africanus; and an error of a single year may, in this case, be regarded as a remarkable instance of accuracy. Thus, for Prichard, Shishak was another name for Smendes. However, had it not been for Syncellus substituting ` Soussakeim' for Smendes, Prichard would presumably have identified Shishak with Psusennes. It certainly would not have occurred to him to select Manetho's Sesonch(os)is, first king of the 22nd Dynasty, because, in Prichard's scheme, this pharaoh would have come to the throne in 882 BC, over a century too late to qualify. After C hampollion But within a very few years the picture had completely changed, and the scholarly consensus had settled on Sesonch(os)is. This was in two respects a consequence of the decipherment of the hieroglyphs. In addition to Champollion's influential conclusion (as discussed above), the reading of Egyptian texts threw a flood of new light on the succession of pharaohs and the lengths of their reigns. This supplemented the ancient writers and led to numerous adaptations of Manetho's figures. To discover the impact of a few decades of study following Champollion's breakthrough, we turn to the Egyptologist Reginald Poole, who contributed lengthy interrelated articles on `Chronology', `Egypt' and `Shi- shak' to a three-volume Dictionary of the Bible published in 1863.63 By the time Poole wrote these articles, the identification of Manetho's Sesonch(os)is with Hedjkheperre Shoshenk, already proposed by Champollion, was assured. In addition to the similar names there was the discovery by Lepsius that the highest year-date attested for Shoshenk on the monuments was his 21st, which corresponded with the 21 years given to Sesonch(os)is by both Africanus and Eusebius. The only question was whether Egyptian chronology, refined by the translated monumental inscriptions, would confirm the identity of ShosheW Sesonch(os)is with the biblical Shishak. Poole worked in essentially the same way that Prichard had done earlier, moving back from a fixed point. Poole also made some reference to Sothic dating in relation to earlier dynasties, 64 but he did not employ it to discover absolute dates. Indeed, he remained wary of an astronomical approach, remarking: What we may term the recorded observation of the monuments cannot be used for the determi- nation of chronology without a previous know- ledge of Egyptian astronomy that we have not wholly attained, 65 Working back from a well-established date therefore remained the major plank in his chronological struc- ture. By the 1860s Apis stelae and other monuments had shown that the 26th Dynasty began in 664 BC with the reign of Psamtek I, and this date became JACF VOL. 6 29 Poole's fixed point. He placed the start of the 25th (Ethiopian) Dynasty at 719 BC (only 4 years higher than the date favoured today). For the 23rd and 24th Dynasties there were still only the figures in Manetho to work from. These totalled (for the two dynasties) 95 years according to Africanus, 88 years according to Eusebius. This carries us up to BC 814 or 807, supposing that the Dynasties, as here stated, were wholly consecutive. 66 When it came to the 22nd Dynasty, the information of Manetho had to be considerably revised in the light of the monuments. The total provided by Eusebius of only 49 years for 3 reigns had to be discarded, as did even the total of 120 years for 9 reigns given by Africanus: The monuments ... oblige us to raise its sum to at least 166 years. 67 Adding this to the previously ascertained date gave either 980 BC or 973 BC for the accession of Shoshenk I. In his treatment of biblical chronology, Poole calculated that Shishak's invasion of Judah occurred in 969 BC68 (16 years later than Prichard's date). If Shishak were Shoshenk, he reasoned, and the invasion occurred near the end of the latter's 21-year reign, the Bible would indicate c. 988 BC for his accession. Poole's conclusion was as follows: The results thus obtained from approximative data are sufficiently near the Biblical date to make it certain that Sheshenk I is the Shishak of Solomon and Rehoboam.. . . 69 However, Poole went on to add that `the progress of Assyrian discovery' had led some scholars to propose a shortening of the chronology of the Hebrew mon- archies by a further 20 years, which, applied to his arguments, would imply an accession-date for Sho- shenk c. 968 BC instead of 988 BC. But he felt that this lower date, if eventually adopted, would cause no difficulty for the identification, because he suspected that the Egyptian dates may themselves require `some small reduction'. 70 The synchronisms between Israel, Judah and Assyria eventually resulted in the dates for the early monarchy being reduced by over forty years from those adopted by Poole. However, even this did not destroy the synchronism between Shoshenk and Shishak, because Egyptologists were prepared to reduce their dates for the start of the 22nd Dynasty by a similar amount. It became clear that the 22nd to 24th Dynasties had not been `wholly consecutive', as assumed by Poole on the basis of Manetho. When overlaps were allowed for, these produced suitably 30 lower dates for Shoshenk I. The identification has therefore survived major, as well as minor, adjustments to both Egyptian and biblical chronology. The root of the problem This brief survey of the chronological argument shows that the synchronism between Shoshenk and Shishak resulted initially from Manetho's framework of Egyptian dynasties, amplified md adapted by the data of the monuments. This information (as understood in the mid-19th century), when placed alongside the biblical chronology (as understood in the mid-19th century), produced an approximate synchronism be- tween Shoshenk and Shishak. This appeared sufficient- ly close to confirm their suspected identity. But how reliable is Manetho's framework of dynasties? We have seen that early studies of Egyptian chronology treated the dynasties as (in Poole's phrase) `wholly consecutive', and this is indeed encouraged by the structure of Manetho's framework. But if careful attention had been paid to various ancient writers, scholars may have treated that framework with greater caution. Introducing his epitome of Manetho's Aegypt- iaca, Eusebius states: ... It must be supposed that perhaps several Egyptian kings ruled at one and the same time; for they say that the rulers were kings of This, of Memphis, of Sais, of Ethiopia, and of other places at the same time. It seems, moreover, that different kings held sway in different regions and that each dynasty was confined to its own nome: thus it was not a succession of kings occupying the throne one after the other, but several kings reigning at the same time in different regions. 71 Thus one ancient writer, who probably possessed a more complete and less corrupted version of Man- etho's text than any now extant, affirmed his belief that Egypt's dynasties were, at times, contemporary with each other. Now, it is true that Prichard did allow the occasional instance of contemporary kings, and later scholars were forced by the evidence of the monu- ments to overlap the 25th Dynasty with the `Proto- Saites' and the 22nd Dynasty with the 23rd and 24th, but the predominating assumption was that reigns and dynasties should be strung out consecutively. This principle was only abandoned when there was incon- trovertible evidence against it. It was the application of this method which caused Poole to place Shoshenk as early as 988 BC. In short, this was the methodology which resulted in Shoshenk being synchronised with Shishak. Yet, as we have seen, there were warnings in the ancient writers that this methodology should not have been applied so vigorously. JACF VOL. 6 As noted in the Introduction to this paper, RON and James have presented compelling evidence that the Third Intermediate Period is currently overstretched and in need of shortening. Most of this evidence is by no means new, but its voice has not been heard by conventional Egyptologists. The reason for this can now be spelt out. When the 22nd to 25th Dynasties were treated as `wholly consecutive', the result seemed to confirm the attractive proposal of Champollion to identify Shoshenk I as the biblical Shishak. Once the identification had been accepted it became an axiom in the development of a firm Egyptian chronology. Since the dynasties of the TIP could not be given absolute dates on independent grounds, the biblical chronology, in supplying dates for Shoshenk I and the start of the 22nd Dynasty, became the measuring rod by which the TIP was fixed. This in turn limited the degree to which the TIP could receive future adjust- ment. As we have seen, evidence requiring overlap- ping of the 22nd, 23rd and 24th Dynasties of Manetho did indeed emerge, and this overlapping was permis- sible because the biblical chronology itself was found to be in need of contraction. But no account could be taken of evidence which, on the face of it, suggested a more drastic compression. The identification of Shoshenk with Shishak, arrived at from a too-rigid interpretation of Manetho's framework, remained the arbiter of TIP chronology even after that rigid interpretation had been abandoned. It should be evident that the current synchronism of Shishak and Shoshenk does rwt prove or support their identity. The synchronism was reached, in the relatively early days of Egyptology, on the basis of a faulty methodology. That methodology is now largely discarded, but the synchronism has survived because the identification of Shoshenk with Shishak has been assumed. Conclusion An examination of the three main supports for the identification of Shoshenk I with Shishak has shown all three to be weak. Perhaps the most striking con- clusion to emerge from this study is how great are the difficulties involved in harmonising the biblical material with Shoshenk's list. This throws the identi- fication into serious doubt. In the light of this, the uncertainties involved in identifying the two names, and the dubious ways in which the two kings became synchronised, should be given due weight. The identi- fication of the two kings is by no means certain, and it cannot be held to stand in the way of the drastic revision of TIP chronology proposed by Rohl and James. Indeed, to argue that the equation Shoshenk = Shishak proves the correctness of the current chronol- ogy would be to indulge in a circular argument, since the chronology has, in its accepted form, been con- structed on the basis of the identification. Notes and References 1. P. J. James: `Egypt: The Centre of the Problem' in JACF 1, 1987, p. 54 (= Section 10 of `Bronze. to Iron Age Chronology in the Old World: Time for a Reassessment?', which also appeared as Studies in __ Ancient Chronology 1 (1987)). P. J. James et al.: Centuries ofDarhness (London, 1991). pp. 231-259. D. M. Rohl: `The Earlv Third Intermediate Period: Some Chronological 2. 3. Consideration' in .TA& 3 (1989/90), pp. 45-71. D. M. Rohl: `A Test of Time: Rediscovering Ancient Israel' in JACF I know of only one dissenter from this identification among scholars who hold to the conventional chronology for Egypt; see T. K. Cheyne in T. K. Cheyne & J. Sutherland Black (eds.): Encyclopaedia Biblica Vol. 4 (London, 1903). col. 4487, where Cheyne argues that Hebrew Mizraim in the relevant passages is not Egypt but an Arabian locality. Thus Shishak becomes an Arabian potentate. See K. A. Kitchen: Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 2nd edn., (Warminster, 1986). p. 73, n. 357. Some Egyptologists, even one as eminent as Gardiner, have wrongly supposed the figure of Amon to be Shoshenk (A. Gardiner: Egypt of the Pharaoh (Oxford, 1961). p. 330). 7. Ibid., pp. 432-47. 8. Ibid., p. 432, n. 49. 9. Champollion: Lettres krites d'Egypte et de Nubie en 1828 et 1829, 2nd edn. (Pans, 1868). p. 80 (Sepfeme Lettre). My emphasis. 10. Ibid., p. 81. 11. Ibid., p. 81. 12. Brugsch: Geogr. Inschr. II, pp. 56ff.. cited by R. S. Poole in W. Smith (ed.): A Dictionary of the Bible, 3 vols. (London, 1863); vol. 3, p. - 4. 5. 5 (1991/92), pp. 30-58. 6. 1791 13. RyS.`Poole: op. cif. [12], p. 1293. 14. W. Max Muller in T. K. Cheyne & J. Sutherland Black (eds.): Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. 4 (London. 1903). col. 4486. n. 5. 15. Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 10 (1888). p. 81. 16. Y. Aharoni: Land of the Bible, 2nd edn. (London, 1979), p. 325; Kitchen: op. cif. [6], p. 437, n. 70. 17. Kitchen: op. cit. [6], p. 437. 18. Kitchen: op. cif. [6], p. 73, n. 356. 19. Gardiner: op. cif. [6], p. 448, n. 1. 20. IGtchen: op. cit. [6], p. 73, n. 356. See also M. Gorg: `Pashur und Pisanhum' in Biblische Notizen 20 (1983). pp. 29-33. 21. E. Wurthwein: The Text of fhe Old Testament (London, 1980). p. 106, lists confusion between yodh and wow among the seven `most frequent confusions' arising between letters in the Hebrew square script. All four examples which he gives of this are instances of yodh in the Dead Sea Scrolls having become waw in the Massoretic Text. Greek renderings of the name do not help us to choose betwen Shishak and Shushak as the original vocalisation. While the Septuagint has XOOUO~KO. Josephus has 'Ioc~Ko. Both predate the vocalisation of the consonantal text by the Massoretes. 22. Kitchen: op. cit. [6], p. 73. n. 356. 23. In the New Chronology, Shishak is identified with either Rarnesses I1 (Rohl) or Ramesses III (James et al.; see n. 2). A word is in order on how the name Shishak might be explained in such a context. As Rohl has demonstrated, both these pharaohs bore the popular name Sysw, and in the case of Ramesses II there is evidence that this was used in the naming of towns and fortresses in Syria-Palestine (JACF 3, 1989/90, p. 63; JACF 5, 1991/92, pp. 42-43). There is therefore good reason to assume that people living in the Levant knew these pharaohs by this hypocoristicon, which they may have vocalised as `Sheshy(su)', `Shesha' or `Shysha'. (The Hittite copy of the peace treaty with Ramesses II gives his name as `Riamashesha'.) This goes some way to explaining the biblical name Shishak, but it does not account for the final letter (qoph, usually transliterated as 4). However, qoph preceded by the vowel pfhah (-aq. as in Shishak) occasionally occurs as a formative ending in biblical Hebrew, perhaps with adjectival force. (See B. Davies: Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, revised edn. (London, 1896), p. 550.) While its addition to an Egyptian hypoconsticon would seem improbable, it might be explained if the name was assimilated to a word already familiar in Hebrew. Hence Davies suggests a connection with shesh. the Hebrew term for fine linen or byssus (op. cit., p. 636). As byssus was associated with Egypt (Ezekiel 7:7), `Byssus-man' might have seemed an appropriate nickname for a pharaoh whose hypocoristicon sounded similar. ~ 24. J. Politeyan: Biblical Discoveries in Egypt, Palestine and Mesopotamia (London, 1915). U. 135. 25. E.g. Gardiner:-op. cit. [6], p. 330; H. Donner in J. H. Hayes & J. M. Miller (eds.): Israelite and Judaeon History (London, 1977). p. 389; J. A. Soggin: A Hirtory of Israel (London, 1984). p. 198. 26. Aharoni: op. cit. [16]. pp. 323-25; see also J. M. Miller & J. H. Hayes: A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (London, 1986). p. 245. 27. The Septuagint amplifies 1 Kings 12 with the account of how Jeroboam manied a relative of Shishak. It relates that Shishak `gave to Jeroboam Ano the eldest sister of Thekemina his wife, to be his wife: she was great among the daughters of the king, and she bore JACF VOL. 6 31 to Jeroboam Abia his son'. There is therefore some confusion as to whether Ano was Shishak's sister-in-law or daughter. It seems likely that `daughter' was the original reading, the extant wording being influenced by the reference to Thekemina's elder sister in the Septuagint's account of Hadad's flight to Egypt in I Kings 11. In view of the likelihood of a scribal error at this point, it would be unwise to assume that the same queen mekemina) flourished in David's time, throughout Solomon's reign and into Rehoboam's. 28. T. H. Robinson: A History of Israel, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1932). p. 275. 29. Poole: op. cit. [12], vol. 3, p. 1294. 30. Robinson: op. cif. [28], p. 275. 31. W. Max Miiller: op. cif. [14]. col. 4486. 32. T. Nicol, in J. Orr et al. (4s.): International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Chicago, 1925). vol. 4, p. 2778. 33. H. Donner: op. cif. [25]. p. 389; see also A. Mazar: Archaeology of fhe Lond of the Bible (London, 1990). p. 398. 34. D. F. Payne: Kingdom of the Lord (Exeter, 1981). p. 69. A similar explanation is assumed by Kitchen (TIPE, p. 298) when he describes Jeroboam as Shishak's `erring prot6gc`; cf. also Soggin: op. cif. [25], p. 198. 35. As assumed by N. Grimal: A History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 1992). p. 323. 36. S. Hemann: History of Israel in Old Testament Times. enlarged edition (London, 1981), p. 1%. 37. Kitchen: op. cif. [6], p. 296, n. 293. citing M. Noth in ZDPV 61 (1938). 38. H. Jagersma: A History of Israel in fhe Old Testament Period (London, 1982), p: 129. 39. B. Topalian: Prophets and the Course of History in the Deuteronomis- tic Corpus: on Interpretation of Deuteronomy - 2 Kings, unpublished doctoral thesis, Dept. of Biblical Studies, Univ. of Sheffield (1976). p. 224. 40. Hemnann: op. cit. [36], 41. Kitchen: op. cif. [6], p. 29i;n!\t8. Kitchen actually suggests that Row IV may represent a local strike northwards into Galilee from Megiddo, with name No. 40 (`Abel') perhaps being Abel-beth-maacah; cf. ibid., pp. 299 and 447 with fig. 9 on. p. 434. 42. Ibid., p. 298; Aharoni: op. cif. [16], p. 326. 43. H. Donner: op. cif. [25], p. 389; see also J. M. Miller & J. H. Hayes: op. cif. [26], p. 245. 44. Kitchen: op. cif. [6]. p. 298; cf. earlier writers, e.g. A. H. Sayce: Early Israel and the Surrounding Nations (London 1899). p. 174: `... The lung of Judah (was) forced to acknowledge himself the vassal of Shishak`. 45. Kitchen: op. cif. [6], p. 298. 46. Cf. J. A. Wilson: ANET, pp. 234, 238 and 242 on lists of Thutmose III, D. Redford: `Contact Between Egypt and Jordan in the New Kingdom: Some Comments on Sources' in A. Hadidi (ed.): Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan I (Dept. of Antiquities, Amman, 1982). pp. 115-19; specifically on Shoshenk's list see I. A. Montgomery & H. S. Gehman: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Bookr of Kings (Edinburgh, 1951), p. 270. 47. Some scholars have argued that the list of cities in I1 Chronicles 11:l-5 does not reflect the historical realities of Rehoboam's reign but derives instead from a later time e.g. V. Fritz: `The "List of Rehoboam's Fortresses'' in 2 Chronicles 11 - A Document from the Time of Josiah' in Eretz-Israel 15 (1981), pp. 46-53; N. Na'aman: `Hezekiah's Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps' in BASOR 261 (1986), pp. 5-21. (In Na'aman's view the list dates from the time of Hezekiah. For a critique see Y. Garfinkel: `2 Chronicles 11:5-10 Fortified Cities List and the Imlk Stamps - A Reply to Nadav Na'amaf' in BASOR 271, (1988), pp. 69-73, with a response by Na'aman: The Date of 2 Chronicles 11:5-10 - A Reply to Y. Garfinkel' in BASOR 271 (1988), pp. 74-77.) However, many Old Testament historians and topographers regard the list as authentic and of historical value (see references in Soggin: op. cif. [25], p. 198). For a strong defense of the list as historically accurate for the reign of Rehoboam, see J. M. pp. 278-80. Miller: `Rehoboam's Ci'ies of Defense and the Levitical City List' in L. G. Perdue et al. (eds.): Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation (Atlanta, 1987). pp. 273-86. 48. I am here following Aharoni's suggestion, op. cif. [16], 2nd edn., p. 326, that Baalath = Baalah, an alternative name for Kiriath-jearim in Joshua 15:9. 49. Aharoni, following Grdseloff, amends No. 25. Kdtm. to read Krtm. which he then takes to be Kiriathaim = Kiriath-jearim = Baalath. By adopting this hypothetical emendation, one could therefore raise the tally of correspondences to three. 50. Kitchen: op. cit. [6], p. 300; Aharoni op. cif. [16], p. 330. 51. Cf. Kitchen: op. cit. [6]. pp. 298, 446, Aharoni: op. cif. [16], p. 326. 52. Aharoni: op. cif. [16], pp. 325-26. 53. Gardiner: op. cif. [6], pp. 329-30; Kitchen: op. cif. [6], p. 435 with n. 57. The earlier error of reading name No. 12 as Gezer is unfortunately retained by Aharoni: op. cit. [16], p. 325. 54. In response to an earlier version of this article, W. H. Shea (`The Military Strategy of Sheshonq/Shishak in Palestine' in Chronology and Catartrophism Review X (1988). pp. 2-10) offered a radically new interpretation of Shoshenk's list, identifying certain names in the ninth row with localities in Jerusalem. The crucial readings are extremely speculative and improbable, and Shea's interpretation of the list as a whole fails to convince. See J. J. Bimson: `Shoshenq's Palestinian Campaign: A reply to Shea' in Chronology and Cotastrophism Review 55. E. R. Thiele: The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 2nd edn (Exeter, 1965). p 62. 56. Kitchen: op. cit. [6], p. 72. Kitchen later remarks: `. . . The chronology of the 2lstMnd Dynasties is not totally dependent upon Hebrew chronology; dead-reckoning from the base-line of the 26th Dynasty and upper limits set by the 19th/2Oth Dynasties also serve to set tangible limits for the 21st/22nd Dynasties' (TIPE Supplement, p. 575). This is true in general terms, given certain assumptions which are part and parcel of the currently accepted chronology of Egypt, but historically the synchronism of the campaigns of Shoshenk and Shishak has played a part in deciding the length of the TIP, as explained below. 57. Published by Sherwood, Gilbert & Piper (London, 1819). 58. Ibid.. p. *57. 59. Herodotus, II. 157ff. 60. For the comparison of Africanus and Eusebius with each other and with the monuments see Gardiner: op. cif. [6]. pp. 430-53; on the TIP in particular, see Kitchen: op. cif. [6], pp. 448-54. XI (1989). pp. 2-3. 61. Prichard: op. cif. [57], p. *60. 62. Ibid., p. *60. 63. W. Smith (ed.): op. cif. [12]. n. 12. 64. Ibid., vol. 3, p.1288. 65. Ibid., vol.1, p. 505. 66. Ibid., vol. 3, p. 1288. 67. Ibid., vol. 3, p. 1288. 68. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 326. 69. Ibid.. vol. 3, p. 1288, emphasis added. 70. Ibid., vol. 3, p. 1289. 71. W. G. Waddell: Manetho, Loeb Classical Library (London, 1971), p. 9. Postscript My prediction that the Shishak/Shoshenk equation would be seen as an obstacle to a drastically revised chronology has, unfortunately, been proved correct by recent debate concerning James et al.: Centuries of Darkness (see n. 2 above). Kitchen has claimed the equation is `unassailable' on linguistic grounds (Cambridge Archaeological Journol It2 (1991). p. 236) and has described the identification as `beyond any rational dispute' (Times Literary Supplement, 17th May 1991, Letters), and an `irremoveable ... rock' which wrecks any attempt at major reduction of TIP chronology (TU, 21st June 1991, Letters). For responses to Kitchen by James et al., see CAJ 2/1 (1992). pp. 127-28; TLS, 7th June and 12th July 1991, Letters.