Shishak's Campaign and Egyptian Sources/0

Shishak's Campaign and Egyptian Sources

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Biblical Sources

Shishak, King of Egypt, is mentioned on two occasions in Tanakh, once in reference to Yerovam, and once in connection to his invasion of Yehuda.

• Granting refuge to Yerovam – Shishak is first mentioned in Melakhim I 11:40, in the context of Yerovam's rebellion against Shelomo. After Yerovam "raised his hand" against Shelomo in rebellion, Shelomo sought to kill him. Yerovam fled to Egypt, where he found refuge by the king, Shishak. Yerovam's choice of haven is not explained in the text.  In addition, the verses do not share how this incident might have affected any later relationship between the Northern Kingdom and Egypt, or whether it was at all connected to Shishak's later invasion of Yehuda.

• The Invasion – Shishak's invasion of Yehuda is mentioned twice in Tanakh, in Melakhim I 14 and in a more expanded version in Divrei HaYamim II 12. According to these sources, in the fifth year of Rechovam's reign, Shishak attacked Yehuda, captured its fortified cities, and approached Yerushalayim. Rechovam paid a tribute from the treasures of the Mikdash and palace, saving the city from attack. Neither source speaks of the earthly reasons for the invasion, but Divrei haYamim provides the theological background to both the attack and the salvation.¹ The nation sinned against Hashem, who therefore abandoned them to Shishak. When the people submitted and repented, His anger subsided and He ensured that Yerushalayim was saved.

Extra-Biblical Sources

Shoshenq I was the founder of the 22nd Dynasty in Egypt, and reigned c. 943–922 BC. He is identified with the Shishak of Tanakh.  We know of his invasion into Yehuda and Israel from two material finds, a topographical inscription found on the Bubasite Portal of the Temple of Amun at Karnak, and a fragmentary victory stele found in Megiddo, containing his name.

• Shoshenq I Inscription – The topographical inscription in the Temple of Amun contains a list of places conquered by Shoshenq I in his military campaign to Israel and Yehuda c. 925 BCE, providing complementary data to that found in Tanakh.  The relief depicts the god Amun² holding ropes attached to the defeated enemy kings in one hand, while his other arm extends forward, apparently presenting a sword to the king.³  The enemies are depicted in 11 rows, with each captive appearing as an identical miniature figure, bearing a circle containing the name of the defeated city in hieroglyphics.  Altogether about 180 cities are named,⁴ but many have not been preserved and most can not be identified with certainty. Nonetheless, they clearly speak of places in both Israel and Yehuda.  The relief's inscriptions are somewhat vague and hyperbolic, focusing mainly on the fact of victory.  They discuss neither the background to Shishak's invasion, nor its goals.⁵
• Stele at Megiddo – A portion of a commemorative stele containing the cartouche of Shoshenq I was found in Megiddo by the Oriental Institute excavations in 1926. Though the stele preserves very little beyond the king's name, it provides further evidence that Shishak had invaded Israel, especially as Megiddo is one of the cities mentioned in the relief at the Temple of Karnak.

Relationship Between the Sources

Corroborating but Conflicting Evidence – The inscription and stele corroborate the fact of Shishak's invasion, but in contrast to Tanakh, suggest that he invaded not only Yehuda, but Israel as well. In addition, though the relief mentions several place names in Yehuda,⁶ it does not include Yerushalayim, which is the focus of Tanakh's account. How are these differences to be understood?

Reconstructing History – Using the information from both Tanakh and the relief, Prof. Elitzur⁷ attempts to reconstruct the chain of events leading up to the invasion, and thereby explain the discrepancies between the accounts:

• Shishak, founder of a new dynasty without the ties to Shelomo that his predecessors had, looked to spread Egyptian control northwards.  To do so, he needed to topple the Davidic dynasty, which had not been possible during the period of the United Kingdom when Israel was at the height of its power.⁸
• When Yerovam rebelled against Shelomo, Shishak saw an opportunity to achieve his goals.  He offered him refuge, and Egyptian backing during his revolt, with the understanding that with the split in the kingdom, Yerovam would be a loyal vassal and side with Egypt against Yehuda.  Shishak would invade Yehuda from the south, while Yerovam attacked from the north, guaranteeing victory. 
• However, after Yerovam succeeded in his initial rebellion, he had second thoughts about allying with Shishak.  The prophet Shemaya's call for Rechovam to stop fighting (Melakhim I 12:22-24) meant that he need not fear Yehuda retaliating further and no longer had need for Egyptian aid.  Moreover, though he had wanted to overthrow the Davidic dynasty, he was probably a lot more hesitant about introducing Egyptian hegemony into the region.
• Yerovam's refusal to participate led simultaneously to the salvation of Yehuda (hence its absence from the list of conquered cities)⁹ and to Shishak's decision to embark on a punitive campaign against Yerovam and Israel who had betrayed him (hence Israel's inclusion). 

Tanakh's silence – Tanakh itself does not share all of this, as its purpose is not to tell a complete history of the region, but rather to express a particular message: the cause of Yehuda's finding itself in danger, and the reason for its salvation.  Since Yehuda turned to idolatry, it found itself attacked.  When the people surrendered and returned to God, Hashem saved them.  Prof. A. Grossman¹⁰ further suggests that the fact that Rechovam was forced to give from the treasury of the Mikdash taught the people that the Mikdash is not invincible. They should never assume that they would be saved by their holy sites; it is the nations deeds and Hashem's corresponding providence that dictates who is saved and who is destroyed.  The need to give of the shields of Shelomo reinforced the lesson.  The shields themselves have no power to protect; only Hashem does: אִם י"י לֹא יִשְׁמׇר עִיר שָׁוְא שָׁקַד שׁוֹמֵר.

¹ Melakhim is not explicit, but hints to the same idea by juxtaposing the verses detailing the people's worship of idolatry with those describing the attack.

² A smaller figure does the same below him.

³ In its presents state, the king can not be seen in the engraving. J. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, (Chicago, 1906): 355, points out that the king himself was apparently not hewn into the stone, but was likely painted on the right side of of the relief, holding the hair, and about to club the captives who beg for mercy.  The sword, too, has not been totally preserved, but as the inscription has Amun say to the king, "take thou my victorious sword," it can be assumed that what the god extends is the weapon.

⁴ Prof. Y Aharoni,  ארץ ישראל בתקופת המקרא, (Jerusalem, 1987):249-254, divides the names into three groups based on region:

1) The first 5 rows (numbers 1-65) are comprised of cities in the Northern Kingdom. [The first ten of these names, however, comprise the Nine Bows, Egypt's traditional enemies, which often head such lists.]

2) The next five rows (numbers 66-150), list places in the South, primarily in the Negev.

3) The last row, containing about 30 more names, most of which have not been preserved, appear to relate to the Southern coastal plane.

⁵ Scholars debate the reason for the campaign. Several suggest that it was an attempt to spread Egyptian dominance northward, taking advantage of Israel's weakened status after the split of the kingdom. [See, for example, Y. Elitzur, "פלישת שישק במקרא:היסטוריוסופיה נבואית מול מציאות".] Others disagree, claiming that the expedition's main objective was the attainment of booty, which might suggest that the cities listed were not necessarily conquered and controlled by Egypt, but only raided. [See N. Neeman, "מסי שישק לארץ ישראל בראי הכתובות המצריות, המקרא והממצא הארכיאולוגי" in Zion 63:3 (1998):247-276, and sources cited there.] Yet others opine that the point was to eradicate Israel's control over trade routes that ran along the coast and to Phoenicia, and perhaps to strengthen Egyptian control over the Philistines. [See, for example, Y. Aharoni, cited above, and Prof. A. Grossman, "מלכים א' פרק י"ד:כ"ב-כ"ה מסע שישק" ]. It is also possible that a combination of these factors played a role.

⁶ Divrei HaYamim records that Shishak conquered the fortified cities of Yehuda, but does not list their names. The verse might refer to those cities mentioned in Divrei HaYamim II 11:5-12 as having been built "לְמָצוֹר".  If so, only one of these, Ayalon, is found on the relief.  Considering that many of the city names in this portion of the relief can not be made out, or have not been identified, this is not particularly surprising, especially since it is not even clear if these cities were the ones captured.

⁷ See  "פלישת שישק במקרא:היסטוריוסופיה נבואית מול מציאות" in Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies Vol. 1,4 (1965): 29-31.

⁸ Israel's strength is what had led the previous king to ally with Shelomo.

⁹ This assumes that the names listed are only of those cities which were totally conquered. As mentioned in the above note, however, it is not clear if the list represents vanquished cities, or only looted ones. It is also possible that Yerushalyim is actually one of the illegible names on the relief, and is mentioned since it, too, was attacked, even if Rechovam's tribute saved it from destruction.

¹⁰ Prof. A. Grossman, "מלכים א' פרק י"ד:כ"ב-כ"ה מסע שישק" in "הוראת פרקים נבחרים בנביאים ראשונים (קצת עצות למורה)," Bar Ilan, 1985.