Accompanying the article, “The Egyptian Empire Strikes Back: Evidence of Shishak’s Invasion of Judah”
The identity of the biblical Shishak as Pharaoh Shoshenq i is accepted by scholars with near-unanimity. There is a variant theory, however—that of Egyptologist David Rohl—that identifies Shishak as Ramesses ii. This will be mentioned here due to a level of popularity of the theory in the public circle, particularly with its promotion in the Patterns of Evidence documentary series.
Rohl proposes a unique “New Chronology” that dramatically down-dates Egyptian history of this period by roughly 300 years, putting Ramesses ii on the scene during the 10th century b.c.e. (as opposed to the 13th century b.c.e.). It is a chronological scheme that, unsurprisingly, has not been well received in scholarship, with few adherents in academia.
Identifying Ramesses ii as Shishak is not just a function of Rohl’s New Chronology—it is a very reason for it.
Rohl justifies this identification based on the apparent differences of the names Shoshenq and Shishak, the lack of mention of Jerusalem on the Bubastite Portal, and the comparatively fewer Judahite cities mentioned in general (as opposed to northern Israelite cities)—something he deems odd, based on his opinion of an alliance between Egypt and Jeroboam’s Israel.
Rohl instead notes a transliteration of the name of Ramesses ii in Hittite correspondence—Riyamashisha—and in turn a “nickname” of this king found in Levantine documentation, as “Shisha” (with the equivalent Egyptian nickname given as Sysw). Rohl argues that the Egyptian letter w ending this name could be mistaken for the Hebrew letter “k,” thus leading to a later scribal reading as “Shishak.” He then points to a description of Israel’s destruction on the Merneptah Stele (dating to the reign of Ramesses’s successor, Merneptah), which says: “Israel is laid waste; its seed is no more”—associating this with the invasion. (This abbreviated explanation is expounded upon by Rohl in a number of his books, such as Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest, and presentations, such as “Exodus—Myth or History? With David Rohl.”)
Objectively, it’s a convoluted case. Does it hold water?
Egyptologist Dr. David Falk notes the fragility of Rohl’s assertion as a basis for completely upending Egyptian chronology. “Unfortunately, Rohl has distorted several facts to make this hypothetical conversion work,” he says.
If Jewish scribes changed the last letter of Ššw to Ššk, why is this somehow more reasonable to Ššnk, dropping the letter n to make Ššk? … Rohl cannot object to one letter out of place, then change three others [in order to complete his full conversion of the name of this pharaoh]. …
Unlike Hittite, which only has a letter š [the “sh” sound], but no s, Hebrew has both the letter s and š. Enough vocabulary was borrowed from Egyptian into Hebrew that we know that Hebrew converted the Egyptian s into Hebrew s, and not to the letter š. The name Ramesses, with its letter s, is attested in Hebrew—five times in the Pentateuch [Genesis 47:11; Exodus 1:11; 12:37; Numbers 33:3, 5]. And in no way does this work undergo Rohl’s hypothetical conversion [into this ‘nickname’].
“There is simply no way that Ramesses ii was the biblical Shishak,” Falk asserts. “We aren’t just dealing with the dates for Ramesses ii and Sheshonq i, but also all the associated biographies. Each king was associated with hundreds of officials and courtiers” (video, “Patterns of Evidence, Part 3: Was Ramesses II the Biblical Shishak?”). Thus, all such synchronisms, particularly with rulers all around the ancient Near East (Assyria, Babylonia, etc), would have to be somehow reinterpreted, redated and reassigned.
This is something admitted by Rohl in his book, Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest: “I readily admit that the subject of Mesopotamian chronology lies outside my competence. As a matter of policy, I have therefore decided, at this stage, to avoid opening up a ‘second front’ in the chronology. … A revised Mesopotamian chronology will have to wait for a while, and then may require the attentions of other, more competent scholars to put together a new model.”
But are the names “Shoshenq” and “Shishak” really so different anyway—requiring a 300-year adjustment in Egyptian history?
‘Shoshenq’ as Shishak
There is an obvious, albeit slight, difference in the names Shoshenq and Shishak. This is seen in the biblical lack of the n consonant for this name. The Bible’s שישק would, with the addition of this consonant, be rendered שישנק. (More simply, without the added mater lectionis “helper vowel” י, the names are ששק and ששנק.)
Note that the vowels are variable. Both Hebrew and Egyptian are consonantal languages, hence various acceptable spellings for both Shoshenq or Sheshonq; there is even a variant of the biblical Shishak as Shoshak or Shushak (שושק). Also note that the final k and q are equivalent letters. In fact, this biblical k is technically better transliterated as q—for it is from this particular Hebrew-Phoenician letter that our own q derives. For these reasons, Prof. Kenneth Kitchen prefers to render the biblical name Shishak as Shushaq (On the Reliability of the Old Testament).
The only real difference between the names is this biblical lack of the consonant n. When comparing the Egyptian and Hebrew texts, we essentially have the difference between Sh-sh-n-q and Sh-sh-q. Is this problematic?
Not at all. The n is what is known as a “weak consonant,” and it is not unusual for it to be dropped. Examples include the Hebrew Gat (biblical Gath) as the Egyptian Gint(i); the Hebrew Makedah as Manqedah in Aramaic; possibly also the Hebrew Put as the Egyptian Punt.
And while “Shoshenq” is the generally given Egyptian name for this king, some contemporary Egyptian monuments render his name without the consonant n. “These monumental inscriptions (dated to year 21 of Shoshenq’s reign) demonstrate ššq was an officially accepted variation,” wrote Gavin Cox (“Strengthening the Shishak/Shoshenq Synchrony,” 2022).
In sum: Despite a relatively popular public reception of Rohl’s New Chronology—not dissimilar to the popular reception of the older chronological theories of philosopher Immanuel Velikovsky, who sought to shift Egyptian history by 600 years (putting Ramesses ii on the scene at the time of Jerusalem’s destruction in the early sixth century b.c.e. and putting Thutmose iii as biblical Shishak)—it is our opinion that Rohl’s New Chronology produces many more questions, contradictions and controversies than it purports to solve.
After all, as covered in “The Egyptian Empire Strikes Back: Evidence of Shishak’s Invasion of Judah,” as far as Shoshenq i goes—we already have a pharaoh, of virtually identical name, reigning at exactly the same period, initiating a campaign at exactly the same time prescribed in the biblical account, into exactly the same territories of the southern Levant. Certain questions remain—but the parallelisms that do exist are, in a word, extraordinary.
