Changes

Egyptologist and historian David Rohl created a stir when he published a revision of the traditional Egyptian and Near Eastern chronologies, and claimed the great 19th Dynasty pharaoh Ramses II as Shishak.  He based his theory on several key elements:

Egyptologist and historian David Rohl created a stir when he published a revision of the traditional Egyptian and Near Eastern chronologies, and claimed the great 19th Dynasty pharaoh Ramses II as Shishak.  He based his theory on several key elements:

*The identity of Shoshenq I as Shishak was based solely on a reading of the text of the Bubasite Portal at the Temple of Karnak near Thebes by [[Jean-François Champollion]] on his only trip to Egypt in the mid-1800s after he successfully deciphered the Egyptian hieroglyphic language.  On the Portal is a list of cities Shoshenq I had conquered in his campaign, and the 29th city Champollion read it as ''y-w-d-h-m-r-k,'' surmising that it meant “Judah Kingdom” (Hebrew ''Yhuda Malkhut'': יְהוּדָה מַלְכוּת).  But it is not the word “Jerusalem,” which is not only not where it should be on the portal, it in fact it is not there at all. A highly important city such as Jerusalem, the capitol of a nation, should have merited mention in Shoshenq’s campaign; indeed, the Biblical reference in 2 Chronicles 12:9 states that Shishak ''"...came up against Jerusalem and took away the treasures of the house of Jehovah, and the treasures of the king's house. He took all. And he carried away the shields of gold which Solomon had made."''.

*The identity of Shoshenq I as Shishak was based solely on a reading of the text of the Bubasite Portal at the Temple of Karnak near Thebes by [[Jean-François Champollion]] on his only trip to Egypt in the mid-1800s after he successfully deciphered the Egyptian hieroglyphic language.  On the Portal is a list of cities Shoshenq I had conquered in his campaign, and the 29th city Champollion read it as ''y-w-d-h-m-r-k,'' surmising that it meant “Judah Kingdom” (Hebrew ''Yhuda Malkhut'': יְהוּדָה מַלְכוּת).  But it is not the word “Jerusalem,” which is not only not where it should be on the portal, it, in fact, is not there at all. A highly important city such as Jerusalem, the capitol of a nation, should have merited mention in Shoshenq’s campaign; indeed, the Biblical reference in 2 Chronicles 12:9 states that Shishak ''"...came up against Jerusalem and took away the treasures of the house of Jehovah, and the treasures of the king's house. He took all. And he carried away the shields of gold which Solomon had made."''.

*The only inscription from Egyptian sources directly identified as mentioning a conquest of Jerusalem is on the north tower of the pylon of the first court at the Ramesseum near Karnak, which was built by Ramses II: ''"The town in which the king plundered in Year 8 – Shalem"''.  The name ''Jerusalem'' was a later word made up of ''yeru'', meaning "foundation" or "city" (possibly bestowed by the patriarch Abraham as "yireh" for Mt. Moriah) and ''Shalem'', either an early local deity from pagan times or a byname for [[Melchizidek]], hence “city of Shalem” (Hebrew: ''Yerushaláyim'' יְרוּשָׁלַיִם).  

*The only inscription from Egyptian sources directly identified as mentioning a conquest of Jerusalem is on the north tower of the pylon of the first court at the Ramesseum near Karnak, which was built by Ramses II: ''"The town in which the king plundered in Year 8 – Shalem"''.  The name ''Jerusalem'' was a later word made up of ''yeru'', meaning "foundation" or "city" (possibly bestowed by the patriarch Abraham as "yireh" for Mt. Moriah) and ''Shalem'', either an early local deity from pagan times or a byname for [[Melchizidek]], hence “city of Shalem” (Hebrew: ''Yerushaláyim'' יְרוּשָׁלַיִם).  

*Rohl also argued that a nickname found for Ramses II and Ramses III, read as “se-se” from the hieroglyphic, may have been corrupted by the Hebrews with an added “K” sound at the end to signify contempt, becoming “se-sek.”  In Hebrew it would have been written as שישק  “sysq”, or “sha-shek”. Van der Veen argues this equation recently(2015).[http://www.academia.edu/13445926/The_Name_Shishaq_Shoshenq_or_Shyshu_q_Responding_to_the_Critics_and_Assessing_the_Evidence_in_P._James_and_P._van_der_Veen_eds._Solomon_and_Shishak_BAR_International_Series_2732_Archaeopress_Oxford_2015]. Troy Leiland Sagrillo argues the traditional view that the biblical Shishaq is Sheshonk I.[https://www.academia.edu/13269463/Shoshenq_I_and_biblical_%C5%A0%C3%AE%C5%A1aq_A_philological_defense_of_their_traditional_equation]

*Rohl also argued that a nickname found for Ramses II and Ramses III, read as “se-se” from the hieroglyphic, may have been corrupted by the Hebrews with an added “K” sound at the end to signify contempt, becoming “se-sek.”  In Hebrew, it would have been written as שישק  “sysq”, or “sha-shek”. Van der Veen argues this equation recently (2015).<ref>http://www.academia.edu/13445926/The_Name_Shishaq_Shoshenq_or_Shyshu_q_Responding_to_the_Critics_and_Assessing_the_Evidence_in_P._James_and_P._van_der_Veen_eds._Solomon_and_Shishak_BAR_International_Series_2732_Archaeopress_Oxford_2015</ref> Troy Leiland Sagrillo argues the traditional view that the biblical Shishaq is Sheshonk I.<ref>https://www.academia.edu/13269463/Shoshenq_I_and_biblical_%C5%A0%C3%AE%C5%A1aq_A_philological_defense_of_their_traditional_equation<ref>

The weakening of Israel at the time of Shishak’s invasion, assuming he was indeed Ramses II, would fit well with the inscription on the [[Mereneptah Stele]] by that later pharaoh (Ramses’  son and successor), which stated “Israel is desolate; his seed is no more.”

The weakening of Israel at the time of Shishak’s invasion, assuming he was indeed Ramses II, would fit well with the inscription on the [[Mereneptah Stele]] by that later pharaoh (Ramses’  son and successor), which stated “Israel is desolate; his seed is no more.”