Shishak's Campaign and Egyptian Sources/0

Shishak's Campaign and Egyptian Sources

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Shishak's invasion into Yehuda is one of the earliest events recorded in Tanakh which is explicitly discussed and confirmed by an extra-Biblical source. The relief of Shoshenq I engraved on the walls of the Temple of Amun at Karnak tells of the campaign mentioned in Melakhim, but from the Egyptian perspective.  When studied together, each source can shed light on the other, providing a fuller account of the incident.

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 the king", Shelomo sought to kill him. Yerovam fled to Egypt, where he found refuge by Shishak. Yerovam's choice of haven is not explained in the text, but suggests that already at this point Shishak was not on friendly terms with Shelomo and the Davidic dynasty.  The verses do not share how (if at all) this incident was connected to Shishak's later invasion of Yehuda, nor how it might have affected any later relationship between the Northern Kingdom and Egypt.

• 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 by most scholars with the Shishak of Tanakh.²  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 Amun³ holding ropes attached to the defeated enemy kings in one hand,⁴ while his other arm extends forward, apparently presenting a sword to the king.⁵  The enemies are depicted in 11 rows, with each king portrayed as an identical miniature figure, bearing a ring containing the name of the defeated city in hieroglyphics.⁶  Altogether about 180 names are listed,⁷ but many have not been preserved and most of the cities can not be identified with certainty.⁸ 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.⁹
• 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.

Archaeological Evidence

According to some scholars, archaeology provides further evidence for Shishak's invasion of Israel.   Several tels, including Beit Shean, Gezer, Megiddo and Arad show destruction in the same layer of their tels, suggesting that there was widespread destruction in a certain time period.  Sishak's campaign would account for this.

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,¹⁰ 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. Elitzur¹¹ 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.¹²
• When Yerovam rebelled against Shelomo, Shishak saw an opportunity to achieve his goals.  He offered Yerovam 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 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)¹³ and to Shishak's decision to embark on a punitive campaign against Yerovam and Israel who had betrayed him. 

Tanakh's silence – Despite the apparent magnitude of the campaign, Tanakh chooses to focus only on the attack on Yerushalayim.  This is not particularly surprising since Tanakh's purpose is not to tell a complete history of the region, but rather to express particular messages, in this case: the cause of Yehuda's finding itself in danger, and the reason for its salvation. Tanakh focuses solely on the theological plane, explaining that Yehuda found itself attacked because it turned to idolatry.  When the people surrendered and returned to God, Hashem saved them.  Prof. A. Grossman¹⁴ 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 nation's 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".

Contribution to Israel Studies

Due to the many city names on the releif, it plays an important role in the study of the geographic history of Israel.

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 Among those who disagree is David Rohl, an English Egyptologist who is a proponent of the "New Chronology" of Egypt, which radically revises the established chronology and leads him to identify Shishak not with Shoshenk I but with Ramses II.

³ A smaller figure does the same below him.

⁴ In this image, one can see the ropes held in Amun's left hand.

⁵ In the present state of the relief, 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 of 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 he is holding one.

⁶ This image is a close-up of some of the figures and their name rings from the sixth and seventh rows on the relief.

⁷ 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 nine 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.

⁸ Among the more well known towns mentioned in the list and also found in Tanakh are Arad, Givon, Beit Shean, and Megiddo.

⁹ 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.

¹⁰ 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.

¹¹ See  "פלישת שישק במקרא:היסטוריוסופיה נבואית מול מציאות" in Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies Vol. 1,4 (1965): 29-31.

¹² Israel's strength is what had led the previous king to ally with Shelomo.

¹³ 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 also those that were attacked and looted, even if not conquered. 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.

¹⁴ 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.