Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Biblical “Shishak king of Egypt”





by

 

Damien F. Mackey




 

 

In my revised system, with King Solomon locked in chronologically and historically

as Senenmut (Senmut) of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty, during the reign of the female, Hatshepsut, the only plausible candidate for the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt”,

who looted the Temple of Yahweh about five years after Solomon’s death,

is Thutmose III, who co-reigned with, and who succeeded, Hatshepsut.

 

 

 

Ever since reading Dr. I. Velikovsky’s Ages in Chaos (I) in the early 1980’s, I have embraced at least that part of his thesis therein (Chapter 4, “The Temple in Jerusalem”) that identifies pharaoh Thutmose III as the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt” (I Kings 14:25-28):

 

In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem. He carried off the treasures of the temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including all the gold shields Solomon had made. So King Rehoboam made bronze shields to replace them and assigned these to the commanders of the guard on duty at the entrance to the royal palace. Whenever the king went to the Lord’s Temple, the guards bore the shields, and afterward they returned them to the guardroom.

 

At first I had simply accepted Velikovsky’s entire reconstruction uncritically, but later, I - after having read various useful critiques of it - came to believe that it required some modification. And more lately (writing now on 5th-6th April, 2019), I have come to the conclusion that Velikovsky’s thesis stands in need of some fairly extensive modification.

My constant throughout all of this, though, is that Queen Hatshepsut was “the Queen of Sheba” and that Thutmose III was “Shishak king of Egypt” - all as according to Dr. Velikovsky.

 

Revisionists who have looked to test the worth of Velikovsky’s “Shishak” thesis have focussed upon, probably, three aspects of it: (i) the name; (ii) the geography; and (ii) the booty.

As well, there is the ever present issue of (iv) the chronology, with a requisite archaeology.

As regards (iv) chronology (and the archaeology is also a matter for serious consideration), I fully accept that only Thutmose III - interwoven with Hatshepsut and Senenmut (Solomon) - can be the biblical “Shishak”. 

The (i) name may, I think, have a simple explanation, as I noted in my article:

 

Pharaohs known to Old Testament Israel

 


 

More than likely … the name “Shishak” was the name by which young Thutmose III was known to king Solomon and his court in his close relationship with his relative, Hatshepsut-Sheba. Solomon had officials, secretaries, whose father was named “Shisha” (I Kings 4:1-3):

So King Solomon ruled over all Israel.

And these were his chief officials:

Azariah son of Zadok—the priest;

Elihoreph and Ahijah, sons of Shisha—secretaries ….

 

[End of quotes]

 

In this same article I had pointed to the fact that the Bible, when actually naming a pharaoh, was wont to use either the ruler’s nomen or praenomen, so that any efforts to identify a biblical pharaoh through that ruler’s, say, suten bat name (Courville), or a nebty name (Habermehl), may be barking up the wrong tree. One may search high and low, unsuccessfully (I suggest), to find a “Shishak”- like pharaonic nomen or praenomen.

Velikovsky may thus have been basically correct regarding (i) the name by his not actually attempting to connect “Shishak” to any of the Egyptian names of pharaoh Thutmose III.

He merely alluded to Josephus’s information that the Egyptian conqueror’s name was “Isakos”, or “Susakos”, and also to the Jewish tradition that ‘the name “Shishak” was from Shuk, “desire”, because the pharaoh had wanted to attack Solomon, but had feared him’.

 

So far, then, I am right with Dr. Velikovsky regarding the pharaoh’s name, and, essentially, too, regarding his revised chronology.

 

However, in this article I shall be proposing a slight, but highly significant, tweak to the latter.

 

Chronology (Archaeology)

 

“It is thought that after the death of Neferure, which perhaps occurred in the eleventh year of Hatshepsut’s reign, [Senenmut] may have embarked upon an alliance with Tuthmosis III which led Hatshepsut to discard him in the nineteenth year of her reign, three years before the disappearance of the queen herself”.

 

Nicolas Grimal

 

 

It was probably inevitable that the pioneering work done by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, in his Ages in Chaos (I), would later be found to require some modification.

 

With his (a) Hatshepsut as the biblical Queen of Sheba; and his (b) Thutmose III as the biblical pharaoh Shishak king of Egypt, Velikovsky had gone for the jackpot. He had looked to identify Hatshepsut’s famous Punt expedition with the Queen of Sheba’s visit to King Solomon.

And he had looked to identify Thutmose III’s most detailed and famous military campaign, his First (in Year 22-23), with Shishak’s assault upon Jerusalem.

But big is not always the best.

Byzantine Christians in search of an appropriate Mount Sinai had hit upon the impressive mountain, Jebel Musa, and had likewise, for the mountain of the Ark’s landing, opted for the tall, snow-capped Mount Ararat in Turkey.

Both, I think, missed the mark. 

In retrospect, Velikovsky was clearly wrong about Hatshepsut’s Punt expedition. By then, her Year 9 as Pharaoh, Hatshepsut was no longer a queen. Moreover, Hatshepsut did not even personally accompany the Punt expedition. And the miserable token gifts that Egypt gave to the Punt-ites could hardly be likened to the lavish gifts that the Queen of Sheba had brought to King Solomon. Chronologically, therefore, Velikovsky was out by a fair bit on this one. (Though still ‘light years’ closer than are the conventionalists).

 

Now, what I shall be proposing in this series is that Dr. Velikovsky was also out chronologically – but only minimally – by identifying Thutmose III’s First campaign as the Shishak event.

To say this is new for me. Chronologically I had - with Senenmut as King Solomon - locked in Thutmose III’s First campaign as being very close to the 5th year of Solomon’s son, Rehoboam (when Shishak had attacked), with my acceptance of P. Dorman’s view that Senenmut  had faded from the Egyptian scene (hence died, as I had concluded) in Hatshepsut’s (also Thutmose III’s) Year 16.

{Peter F. Dorman, The Monuments of Senenmut: Problems in Historical Methodology, London: Kegan Paul Ltd., 1988}

However, whilst various historians do indeed favour Year 16 as being the last for Senenmut, others would extend this, even as far as Year 19. Thus N. Grimal, for instance, who has written (A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994. My emphasis):

 

It is thought that after the death of Neferure, which perhaps occurred in the eleventh year

of Hatshepsut’s reign, [Senenmut] may have embarked upon an alliance with Tuthmosis III which led Hatshepsut to discard him in the nineteenth year of her reign, three years before the disappearance of the queen herself.

 

But, even if Year 16 were the correct date, that does not mean that Senenmut/Solomon had actually died in, or close to, that year (as I had presumed). Hence, there is some chronological space or wriggle room that might allow for the Shishak campaign to have been one of the other (many) military campaigns of the Napoleon-like (except Thutmose III never lost a battle) pharaoh - a campaign slightly later than his First (Year 22-23).

And I now think that such has to be the case.

The First campaign, that I have long held to have been the Shishak event, does not appear to match up to it geographically. I shall be elaborating upon this further on.  

Velikovsky had erred here, I believe, in ‘going for the jackpot’.

 

And what about the impressive booty? For that, see last section.

 

 

Regarding the four (i-iv) key Shishak issues that we identified previously:

 

  1. Name;
  2. Geography;
  3. Booty;
  4. Chronology (archaeology)

 

I would estimate that Dr. Velikovsky was well on the right track with (i), and also that he came extremely close with (iv). Later revisionists, like Dr. John Bimson (“Can There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?”, SIS Review VoI.VII-3, 1978), had endeavoured to add an appropriate archaeology to the Velikovskian scenario:

 

Although an exhaustive study of the LBA contexts of all scarabs commemorating Hatshepsut and Thutmose III would be required to establish this point, a preliminary survey suggests that objects from the joint reign of these two rulers do not occur until the transition from LB I to LB II, and that scarabs of Thutmose III occur regularly from the start of LB II onwards, and perhaps no earlier [14]. Velikovsky’s chronology makes Hatshepsut (with Thutmose III as co-ruler) a contemporary of Solomon, and Thutmose III’s sole reign contemporary with that of Rehoboam in Judah [15]. Therefore, if the revised chronology is correct, these scarabs would suggest that Solomon’s reign saw the transition from LB I to LB II, rather than that from LB I A to LB I B.

[End of quote]

 

With the latter part of the 54-year reign of Thutmose III dipping down into the early reign of King Asa of Judah, as I would estimate, and with King Ahab arriving on the scene roughly two decades later, in the 38th year of Asa (I Kings 16:29), then the archaeology seems to me to fit, given my identification of the rebuilding of Jericho at the time of Ahab at the Iron Age I level. On this, see e.g. my article:

 

Hiel's Jericho. Part One: Stratigraphical level

 


 

Vern Crisler, whilst also locating King Ahab stratigraphically at “the early Iron Age”, has (differently from Dr. Bimson) Thutmose III at Late Bronze I B which then raises problems:

 

Velikovsky and Ages in Chaos: A Critique:

 


 

Velikovsky theorized that Thutmose 3 was biblical Shishak. The weakness of this correlation is evident in that Velikovsky had to indulge in a speculative identification of the “Kadesh” defeated by Thutmose 3 with the city of Jerusalem defeated by Shishak. In addition, the correlation of the treasures taken from Jerusalem by Shishak with the bas-relief of Thutmose 3 at Karnak is erroneous.61

Worse still is the fact that Thutmose 3 reigned during the LB1b archaeological phase. That would mean those who followed him would have lived during the LB2a and LB2b phases.

So if Thutmose is identified with the tenth century, then the LB1b phase would also be identified with the tenth century. As we’ve discussed, this runs up against the Samaria Paradox. The building of a city on the hill of Samaria by Omri and Ahab during the early ninth century BC corresponds with the early Iron Age. So to accept a tenth century date for LB1b Thutmose 3 means all the following Egyptian kings, along with the LB2a and LB2b periods have to be squeezed into about 20 years. The reason they cannot be after Samaria is because the Late Bronze Age had already ended by the time Samaria was built. And Shishak had to have invaded Judah sometime just before the beginning of the ninth century (using Thiele’s dates). So that leaves virtually no time at all for the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasty kings. And if that weren’t bad enough, it leaves no room for the two Late Bronze Age strata, LB2a and LB2b.

 

 

Pharaoh marches up to Jerusalem

 

 

What will be suggested here is that, whilst Dr. Velikovsky was perfectly correct in adhering to the conventional line that Thutmose III’s Mkty referred to the strong fort of Megiddo,

he erred in his view that the pharaoh’s Kd-šw pertained to Jerusalem (Kadesh, “holy”).

 

 

Although I had initially accepted Dr. Velikovsky’s reinterpretation of Thutmose III’s First campaign quite uncritically, that changed after I read Dr. Eva Danelius’s modification of it in her article, “Did Thutmose III Despoil the Temple in Jerusalem?” (SIS Review, Vol. II, 3). This article I have until recently considered to be one of the truly useful - and necessary - modifications of Velikovsky, though without wiping out his important foundations.

 

The strong point about Danelius’s article, I have long thought, was her explanation of the topography of the pharaoh’s First campaign, which seemed to account far better for the feared Aruna road to Mkty that Thutmose III had decided to take - even in the face of strong protests by his military staff - than did the seemingly “broad and open valley Wâdy 'Ârah to Megiddo that the pharaoh is generally considered to have taken.

And, even though I must now reject Dr. Danelius’s explanation in favour of the conventional one, I have to admit that I still find to be quite mystifying the topographical aspect of it.

 

Dr. Velikovsky’s own explanation for the topographical situation (see also below) was this: “Now as to the approach to Megiddo being a narrow pass - by what it is now, it cannot be judged what it was almost three thousand years ago. There could have been artificial mound-fortifications the length of the pass”.

Anyway, this is what Dr. Velikovsky would write to Dr. Danelius about her article:

 

A Response to Eva Danelius


by Immanuel Velikovsky

 

Dr Velikovsky sent comments to Dr Danelius after reading her paper, and has requested that some of these be printed here:-

 

My view of the paper of Dr Danelius is given here extracted from a personal letter to her, dated March 14, 1977.

Dr Danelius is a very gifted researcher and innovator, and she herself carries the responsibility for challenging Breasted and all others: I do not wish that any authority I may carry should overshadow the discussion of my work.

 

Your paper on Hatshepsut* is an important contribution. With your paper on Thutmose III and Megiddo I am not in accord. I would still follow Breasted as to the position of Megiddo, and these are my considerations in short:

 

It seems to me that things went this way: When Jeroboam, upon the death of Solomon, returned from Egypt, he did not succeed immediately in taking over the entire area of the northern tribes. Megiddo was one of the fortresses (the main) built by Solomon, and it withstood the secession. Four or five years thereafter, Thutmose III moved into Palestine, and as his first step he "took the fenced cities which pertained to Judah" (II Chronicles 12:4). Rehoboam hurried to defend Megiddo. Thutmose did not put siege to Jerusalem: he wished first to eliminate the strategically-dominating stronghold that was a thorn in his plan. After a pitched battle outside of the gate, in which the King of Kadesh participated, he was hoisted to the fortress - after a while the King of Kadesh (Rehoboam) went out of the fortress and "humbled himself"; Jerusalem was not besieged: already at the walls of Megiddo the surrender and the loot of the Temple and the palace of Jerusalem were agreed upon.

 

This was about -940. Megiddo was not handed over by Thutmose to Jeroboam, but was kept as a fortress enclave in the land that was a divided vassalage (North-South), with an Egyptian-appointed commander.

 

….

 

Also the name of the brook (Taanak) referred to by Thutmose III next to Megiddo:

"One of the roads - behold it is to the east of us, so that it comes out at Taanach. The other - behold, it is to the north side of Djefti, and we will come out to the north of Megiddo ..."

 

Taanach is also next to Megiddo in the Bible (I Kings 4:12). Your equation of Taanach with the Tahhunah ridge does not strengthen your thesis.

 

Now as to the approach to Megiddo being a narrow pass - by what it is now, it cannot be judged what it was almost three thousand years ago. There could have been artificial mound-fortifications the length of the pass. Think, for instance, of Tyre of the time of Shalmaneser III or Nebuchadnezzar (who besieged it for 13 years), or even of the days of Alexander, when it withstood a protracted siege. Today its topography is completely changed.

 

The story as I see it explains what you see as insurmountable difficulties. I was asked what I think of your essay, and before I let it be known, I tell you this in the spirit of constructive co-operation. …

[End of quote]

 

My biggest problem with Dr. Danelius’s thesis, even while I had been keenly accepting it, was that combination of a Megiddo-like name Mkty (My-k-ty) with a Taanach (T3-'3-n3-k3). As Dr. Velikovsky had written to Dr. Danelius: “Taanach is also next to Megiddo in the Bible (I Kings 4:12). Your equation of Taanach with the Tahhunah ridge does not strengthen your thesis”.

But, on the positive side again, I had found Dr. Danelius’s account of the Aruna road to fit linguistically far better than does 'Ârah. She wrote:

 

When identifying the name transcribed "Aruna": (1) it must be remembered that the third letter represents the so-called "semi-vowel" w (u), which may indicate a sound of vowel or consonant character; true vowels were not written in Egyptian or Hebrew (72). In the case of Biblical Hebrew, where exact pronunciation is of the utmost importance, this gap has been filled about 1,000 years ago by Rabbis living at Tiberias, who added vowels to their manuscript, and that is the pronunciation used to this day. Thus it happens that the name Aruna has been preserved in written Hebrew letter for letter, though pronunciation is slightly different. It is the original name of the place on which the Temple had been built, the so-called "threshingfloor of Araunah the Jebusite" (73).

 

(2) In other words, the road dreaded by the officers was the camel-road leading from Jaffa up the so-called Beth Horon ascent to Jerusalem, approaching the city from the north. In the time of David it led to the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite; in the time of Rehoboam it led to the Temple Mount which had been built at that place. The inhabitants, though, continued to use the ancient name for the road.

[End of quote]

 

She also wrote with reference to professor Breasted’s prize student, Harold H. Nelson: “As an afterthought, Nelson warns not to be deceived by the Arabic name (wadi) 'Ara: "Etymologically, it seems hardly possible to equate (Egyptian) 'Aruna with (Arab) 'Ar'arah." (51)”.

Unfortunately for Danelius, though, an Araunah road is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

 

So, instead of tortuously following Dr. Danelius to discover how the pharaoh’s Mkty might pertain to Jerusalem:

 

Among the names enumerated as designating Jerusalem is Bait-al-Makdis, or in brief, Makdis, corresponding to Beithha-Miqdash in modern Hebrew pronunciation. The10th century Arab writer who mentions this name calls himself Mukadassi = the Jerusalemite (102). The name Mâkdes was still used by the Samaritans (a Jewish sect who never left the country, who trace their ancestors to three of the northern tribes of Israel) at the beginning of this century, when discussing with Rabbi Moshe Gaster their attitude towards Jerusalem (103), and a local shop outside Damascus Gate still bears the inscription: Baith el-Makdis.

 

And, instead of following Velikovsky and Danelius to discover how the pharaoh’s Kd-šw might pertain to Jerusalem (Velikovsky), or the land thereabouts (Danelius):

 

(4) Finally, the eastern opening of the road lies in a district called "Jebel el Kuds" in Turkish times, "Har Kodsho" by the Hebrews, both names meaning the same: "The Mount of the Holy One", "The Holy Mount". In other words Kd-sw was not the name of a city, but of a land. This explains too why it always heads the Egyptian lists referring to campaigns into so-called Palestine. According to Conder, there were around 20 towns and villages in the "Jebel el Kuds", which, in his time, belonged to the area under the Mutaserrif of Jerusalem (75). In Biblical times it belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. Conder describes it as "one of the most difficult to survey on account of the ruggedness of the hills and the great depth of the valleys" (76). The Aruna road reaches the Har Kodsho/Land of Benjamin roughly 10 km north of the Temple Mount, when it turns south and finally runs along the watershed till it reaches its destination (see Map 1) ….

it is easier for me now to accept (despite my topographical protestations) - especially in light of the chronological considerations that I raised in Part Two (i) - that the standard view of the geography of Thutmose III’s First campaign is correct. According to the typical view, Mkty represents Megiddo and Kd-šw represents Qadesh on the Orontes.

Here is a colourful account of Thutmose III:


 

Thutmose III The Napoleon of Ancient Egypt 1479 – 1425 BC


Thutmose III The Napoleon of Ancient Egypt

 

….

Some believe Rameses II was the greatest Egyptian ruler but this not true; he spent Egypt’s wealth on massive building projects where as Thutmose III actually created Egypt’s wealth. Thutmose III possessed the archetypal qualities of a great ruler. A brilliant general who never lost a battle, he also excelled as an administrator and statesman. He was an accomplished horseman, archer, athlete, and discriminating patron of the arts. Thutmose had no time for pompous, self-indulgent bombast and his reign, with the exception of his uncharacteristic spite against the memory of Hatshepsut, shows him to have been a sincere and fair-minded man.

Thutmose III had spent the long years of his aunt Hatshepsut’s reign training in the army. This kept him away from court politics but nevertheless prepared him well for his own role as pharaoh because great ability in war was considered a desirable quality in the ancient world. Egyptian pharaohs were expected to lead their armies into foreign lands and demonstrate their bravery on the field in person. After a few victorious battles, a king might return home in triumph, loaded with plunder and a promise of annual tribute from the defeated cities. But during Hatshepsut’s reign, there were no wars and Egypt’s soldiers had little practice in warfare.

The result was that Egypt’s neighbors were gradually becoming independent and when this new, unknown pharaoh came to the throne; these other kings were inclined to test his resolve.

In the second year of his reign, Thutmose found himself faced with a coalition of the princes from Kadesh and Megiddo, who had mobilized a large army. What’s more, the Mesopotamians and their kinsmen living in Syria refused to pay tribute and declared themselves free of Egypt.

Undaunted, Thutmose immediately set out with his army. He crossed the Sinai desert and marched to the city of Gaza which had remained loyal to Egypt. The events of the campaign are well documented because Thutmose’s private secretary, Tjaneni, kept a record which was later copied and engraved onto the walls of the temple of Karnak.

Thutmose III The Napoleon of Ancient EgyptThis first campaign revealed Thutmose to be the military genius of his time. He understood the value of logistics and lines of supply, the necessity of rapid movement, and the sudden surprise attack. He led by example and was probably the first person in history to take full advantage of sea power to support his campaigns.

Megiddo was Thutmose’s first objective because it was a key point strategically. It had to be taken at all costs. When he reached Aruna, Thutmose held a council with all his generals. There were three routes to Megiddo: two long, easy, and level roads around the hills, which the enemy expected Thutmose to take, and a narrow, difficult route that cut through the hills.

His generals advised him to go the easy way, saying of the alternative, “Horse must follow behind horse and man behind man also, and our vanguard will be engaged while our rearguard is at Aruna without fighting.” But Thutmose’s reply to this was, “As I live, as I am the beloved of Ra and praised by my father Amun, I will go on the narrow road. Let those who will, go on the roads you have mentioned; and let anyone who will, follow my Majesty.”

When the soldiers heard this bold speech they shouted in one voice, “We follow thy Majesty whithersoever thy Majesty goes.”

Thutmose led his men on foot through the hills “horse behind Horse and man behind man, his Majesty showing the way by his own footsteps.” It took about twelve hours for the vanguard to reach the valley on the other side, and another seven hours before the last troops emerged. Thutmose, himself, waited at the head of the pass till the last man was safely through.

The sudden and unexpected appearance of Egyptians at their rear forced the allies to make a hasty redeployment of their troops. There were over three hundred allied kings, each with his own army; an immense force. However, Thutmose was determined and when the allies saw him at the head of his men leading them forward, they lost heart for the fight and fled for the city of Megiddo, “as if terrified by spirits: they left their horse and chariots of silver and gold.”

Thutmose III The Napoleon of Ancient EgyptThutmose on the walls of Karnak Temple

 

The Egyptian army, being young and inexperienced, simply lacked the control to take the city immediately. Thutmose was angry. He said to them,
“If only the troops of his Majesty had not given their hearts to spoiling the things of the enemy, they would have taken Megiddo at that moment. For the ruler of every northern country is in Megiddo and its capture is as the capture of a thousand cities.”

Megiddo was besieged. A moat was dug around the city walls and a strong wooden palisade erected. The king gave orders to let nobody through except those who signaled at the gate that they wished to give themselves up. Eventually the vanquished kings sent out their sons and daughters to negotiate peace. According to Thutmose, “All those things with which they had come to fight against my Majesty, now they brought them as tribute to my Majesty, while they themselves stood upon their walls giving praise to my Majesty, and begging that the Breath of Life be given to their nostrils.”

They received good terms for surrender. An oath of allegiance was imposed upon them: “We will not again do evil against Menkheper Ra, our good Lord, in our lifetime, for we have seen his might, and he has deigned to give us breath.”

Thutmose III is often compared to Napoleon, but unlike Napoleon he never lost a battle. He conducted sixteen campaigns in Palestine, Syria and Nubia and his treatment of the conquered was always humane. He established a sort of “Pax Egyptica” over his empire. Syria and Palestine were obliged to keep the peace and the region as a whole experienced an unprecedented degree of prosperity.

His impact upon Egyptian culture was profound. He was a national hero, revered long after his time. Indeed, his name was held in awe even to the last days of ancient Egyptian history. His military achievements brought fabulous wealth and his family resided over a golden age that was never surpassed.

He was also a cultured man who demonstrated a curiosity about the lands he conquered; many of his building works at Karnak are covered with carvings of the plants and flowers he saw on his campaigns. He also set up a number of obelisks in Egypt, one of which, erroneously called Cleopatra’s Needle, now stands on the Embankment in London. Its twin is in Central Park in New York. Another is near the Lateran, in Rome, and yet another stands in Istanbul. In this way, Thutmose III maintains a presence in some of the most powerful nations of the last two thousand years.

 

One can see from maps that reconstruct Thutmose III’s First campaign that Jerusalem was not a concern of the pharaoh’s at this early stage. He had his hands full quelling the major rebellion incited against Egypt by the kingdom of Mitanni, and led by the ruler of Qadesh, which coalition had used the fort of Megiddo in northern Israel as a rallying point.

 

From the biblical accounts of “Shishak” it is apparent that the pharaoh did not even have to lay siege to Jerusalem. We earlier looked at the brief account of it given in I Kings 14:25-28. Here now is the longer version of it in 2 Chronicles 12:1-12:

 

Shishak Attacks Jerusalem


 

After Rehoboam’s position as king was established and he had become strong, he and all Israel with him abandoned the law of the Lord. Because they had been unfaithful to the Lord, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem in the fifth year of King Rehoboam. With twelve hundred chariots and sixty thousand horsemen and the innumerable troops of Libyans, Sukkites and Cushites that came with him from Egypt, he captured the fortified cities of Judah and came as far as Jerusalem. Then the prophet Shemaiah came to Rehoboam and to the leaders of Judah who had assembled in Jerusalem for fear of Shishak, and he said to them, “This is what the Lord says, ‘You have abandoned me; therefore, I now abandon you to Shishak.’”

The leaders of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said, “The Lord is just.”

When the Lord saw that they humbled themselves, this word of the Lord came to Shemaiah: “Since they have humbled themselves, I will not destroy them but will soon give them deliverance. My wrath will not be poured out on Jerusalem through Shishak. They will, however, become subject to him, so that they may learn the difference between serving me and serving the kings of other lands.”

When Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem, he carried off the treasures of the temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including the gold shields Solomon had made. So King Rehoboam made bronze shields to replace them and assigned these to the commanders of the guard on duty at the entrance to the royal palace. Whenever the king went to the Lord’s temple, the guards went with him, bearing the shields, and afterward they returned them to the guardroom.

Because Rehoboam humbled himself, the Lord’s anger turned from him, and he was not totally destroyed. Indeed, there was some good in Judah.

 

This was a massive army led by “Shishak king of Egypt”, and I suspect that the biblical account may be telescoping two (or more) accounts that include the massive First campaign. The “Shishak” incident I would now locate to one of Thutmose III’s slightly later campaigns, perhaps his second in Year 24, or either of the two after that:


 

Thutmose's second, third, and fourth campaigns appear to have been nothing more than tours of Syria and Canaan to collect tribute. Traditionally, the material directly after the text of the first campaign has been considered to be the second campaign. This text records tribute from the area which the Egyptians called Retenu, (roughly equivalent to Canaan), and it was also at this time that Assyria paid a second "tribute" to Thutmose III.

 

Traditionally, the material directly after the text of the first campaign has been considered to be the second campaign”. This allows for the booty famously recorded by Thutmose III at Karnak to belong collectively to the pharaoh’s first few campaigns.

 

For more on that booty, see next part of this article.

 

 

Pharaoh’s bas-relief treasures - Karnak

 

 

Dr. Velikovsky’s hopeful attempt to identify the Karnak pieces with items from the reign of King Solomon (Temple and palace) has been seriously compromised by misidentifications.

 

 

 

Great credit is due to Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky for his having identified (in Ages in Chaos, I) the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt” with the mighty pharaoh Thutmose III of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty. Had he not done this, we would still be like those poor souls in Plato’s Cave groping about in conventional darkness, being unable to find access to clarifying light.

 

As a pioneer, though, it was probably inevitable that Velikovsky would provide solutions that would later need some modification. And, if this present series is on the right track, Velikovsky, whilst arriving at a most adequate chronology, and name origin, for “Shishak”, chose the wrong pharaonic campaign, the First campaign (the biggest one), as constituting the biblical “Shishak” incident.

 

Now, the Karnak bas-reliefs that tend to be coupled with that First campaign were eagerly embraced by Velikovsky as illustrating the magnificent treasures plundered from Solomonic Jerusalem. Whilst I have argued in this series that the First campaign could not have been the “Shishak” one, geographically for sure, and probably chronologically, it is still possible that Velikovsky was correct about the Karnak bas-reliefs insofar as these may also have included booty from the campaigns immediately following on from the First. At least the Second one.

 

But Dr. Velikovsky’s hopeful attempt to identify the Karnak pieces with items from the reign of King Solomon (Temple and palace) has been seriously compromised by misidentifications. Most unfortunate of all, perhaps, was his misidentification of one of the Karnak objects with the Ark of the Covenant itself.

This has been exposed by Creationist Patrick Clarke in his article: “Was Thutmose III the biblical Shishak?— Claims for the Jerusalembas-relief at Karnak investigated”


Clarke takes several objects identified by Velikovsky and shows that they cannot be what Velikovsky claimed them to have been. I have checked each one of these using A. Gardiner’s Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, and have found them to be exactly as Patrick Clarke has written.

However, it should be noted that Clarke has examined only a very few items: the supposed Ark of the Covenant; some priestly garments; a fire altar; lamps; showbread, and found Velikovsky to be wanting in each of these cases. That does not discount some of the many other articles that appear on the bas-relief from pertaining to Solomonic Jerusalem.

 

Serious revisionists ought to make a fresh start on investigating this.

No comments:

Post a Comment