Shishak Sheshonk or Ramses 2?

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Post Reply
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 2:39 am

Shishak Sheshonk or Ramses 2?

Post by Japhethite » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:32 pm

Shishak is the Egyptian king in the bible who Jeroboam fled to, and who raided Jerusalem in the reign of Rehoboam son of Solomon.
The conventional Egyptian chronology corresponds Shishak with Sheshonk I of the 22nd dynasty, and this the the one most important Egyptian-Biblical correspondences in their chronology. Alternative scholars including myself disupte the Shishak/Sheshonk match and we favour Shishak matching an earlier king, most likely Ramses 2. But the conventional chronologists continue to reject the alternative matches as equally or more possible and to still hold to their conventional correspondence. The only one major reason they continue to stick to this is the calculated "synchronism" counting back from the historical synchronism of Osorkhon 4 & Sargon 2 (supported by their dates for some other dynasties derived from various other dating methods of theirs). That is the only major reason, otherwise there is little evidence for the Shishak/Sheshonk match.
This article firstly shows how the matches of Shishak with Sheshonk are all weak (including the dating methods), and secondly shows Shishak could instead better match the likes of Ramses 2.

Names match
Meaning match
Campaign match, & Years match?
"Head wound match"
Temple match
Gold match
Zerah match
Lubims match
Hiram match
Sukkim match, & Kussiim match
Chariots & horses match, & Numbers match
Pharaoh's daughter match, & Ano match?
Ugarit match?
Son of David match
First use of title and name match
"Can't be sandwiched between Egypt & Hittites" match *
Sequential Egyptian-Biblical matches
480 yrs match
"Hebrews knew name Ramses so unlikely to call him Shishak" match
Dates match *

Names match:
Conventional scholars main supposed correspondence between the biblical Shishak/Susakim and the Egyptian Sheshonk/Shoshenq/Sosenk/Shashanq apart from the supposed dates match is the supposed names match.
However, the first criticism is that the names are not necessarily as close a possible match as supposed. Some scholarly critics have pointed out that they don't explain how/why the -n- is lost. (Though the defenders try to claim that this is minor, but they don't think such things are minor when they are criticising other peoples names matches with similar minor differences.) Also possibly the Egyptian k/q might not match Hebrew k? And one or two of the vowels are different, especially the o in Shoshenk/Sheshonk (though the first o might match the u in the Septuagint version Susakim). Plus the s in the Septuagint version might not match Egyptian sh?
Secondly there are at least one or two or three other pharaoh's in Egyptian history who had names similar to Shishak's, including Sesortosis/Sesonchosis, Sesostris/Senusret, Ramses 2 (Ses/Sestesu/Sestura/"Sesostris" or Shysha/Sysa/Sysw/Riamashisha), and according to Peter James Ramses 3 (Ra-meses-haq-annu or sw-heka or Shyshu/Shsh or Ka-nekht-Susekh.../...Swsx-Kmt... "extender of Egypt")? Velikovsky's Shishak candidate Tuthmosis does not have a name matching Shishak (other than the ending -sis).
Ramses II's name Ses was not "exceptionally rare in Egyptian records". Bey says "monuments and papyri often" designate him by this name.
Thirdly, Shoshenq's name is alternatively similar to king So's. King So of the bible can only match either Psusennes (21st dyn), Shoshenq (22nd or 23rd dyn), Osorkhon (22nd dyn or 23rd dyn), or Shabaka/Sabaco (25th dyn). The conventional match of the name So with Shabaka does not seem as good as it is supposed to be.

Name meaning match:
The conventional Shishak/Sheshonk match has no meaning of the name Shishak match with Sheshonk.
However, the alternative Shishak/Ramses II match does have a possible meaning of the name Shishak match with Ramses II. Shishak's name has been suggested to mean "brightness, illustrious", or it might be related to Shushan "lily, white, rose", or sus "horse"? Forensic studies have found that Ramses 2 seemingly had red or auburn or white hair. The bible also says Shishak came with 1200 chariots & 60000 horsemen.

Campaign match:
Conventional scholars suppose that Shishak's campaign and Sheshonk's campaign are similar and could match. However, critics point out that Sheshonk's campaign list doesn't match Shishak's, and that his campaign list could instead match king So's abit later in the bible. The bible says Shishak "captured the fortified cities of Judah and finally came to Jerusalem" (Chronicles 12).
Sheshonk's campaign list in Karnak/Thebes lists 150/155/156 towns & villages in Israel-Judah/Syria-Palestine/Canaan (including Arad, Hekel Abram, Megiddo, Bethshan, Hapharaim, Gibeon). Sheshonk set up a stone slab in Megiddo with his name & titles inscribed upon it. But the names listed in the Bubastite portal at Karnak and reliefs in el-Hibeh are "located primarily in the territory of the (northern) Kingdom of Israel, with a few listed in the Negev and perhaps Philistia" (ref Wikipedia). Jerusalem is not mentioned (nor are Hebron, Beer-sheba, Bethlehem, Jaffa, Gath, Askelon). "Was 'Shishak' so modest that he did not mention the capital he conquered and the rich booty of the temple...?" "Almost no name could be located in all of Judah...." Of the 150 place-names in the list "only 17 can be located with certainty, and 2 more with probability. 14 of these belong to Isarel... while the remaining 5 in Judah are, with 1 exception, obscure villages." (Hekel is also an Aramaic word.) "This gives the impression that only Israel was subject to Sosenk, not Judah". (Ref Velikovsky 'Ages in Chaos' pg 188.)
If Shishak "came to aid his ally Jeroboam" as the orthodox theory suggests, then why did he (as Sheshonk) invade the northern kingdom of Israel, and why does the bible say nothing about this invasion?
(Also, did Shishak carry all those temple treasures with him on the rest of his supposed campaign in Israel? Unless he came to Jerusalem on his way back?)
Unfortunately though the dispute is stalemate because the conventional scholars try to argue that Sheshonk's campaign list is incompletely known and so "might" have contained Jerusalem and Judah place names. (They would also argue that we are arguing absence of evidence, yet they are inversely arguing absence of evidence themselves.)
On the other hand Ramses 2's campaign list could match Shishak's. Ramses 2 had 5 Syrian campaigns grouped together in 2 sets (the 1st & 2nd in his 4th & 5th year, and the 3rd, 4th & 5th in his 7th to 10th years), plus further conflict with the Hittites in his 18th to 21st years. (Shishak's campaign was in his X yrs + 5th yr in the bible, and he reigned a further X yrs. Ramses reigned for 67 yrs.) One of Ramses 2's campaigns included Shalama which could match Jerusalem/Salem (ref Bey, & Rohl). Wikipedia even says that in his 3rd campaign "The other force, led by Ramses, attacked Jerusalem and Jericho...." (Another source says he was at Jerusalem in year 7, and another source says he conquered Shalem in year 8.) Or a less likely alternative is that the place Kadesh that Ramses 2 fought at could match Jerusalem which is sometimes called by that name (as Velikovsky pointed out). The "forest of Labwi" in the battle of Kadesh of Ramses 2 recalls the 'House of (the forest of) Lebanon' of Jerusalem, and the river Orontes sounds/looks similar to the river Jordan? Though it otherwise doesn't look very possible that the Kadesh of Ramses 2 could match Jerusalem.
Re claims that Ramses didn't campaign in Levant like Sheshonk did:
Ramses II did so campaign in the Levant, sources say his campaigns included Jerusalem and Judah and Edom and Moab. Sheshonk's list still doesn't include many Judah places compared to other places?
Even if a Ioudahamalek/Judah-melek "may" be mentioned in a portal of Sheshonk's "that may not reflect an actual itinerary" it doesn't prove he matches Shishak.
Ioudahamalek/Judahmelek/Yadhamalek/Ydhmrk is a placename "Judah of the king" not "king(dom) of Judah/Jews" because it is written with a determinative for a place name not a personal name, plus the Egyptians wouldn't have used Semitic words (ha and) malek/melek. As a placename it is only theory that it could match Jerusalem, and it is very unlikely given the name (Jerusalem unlikely to be called "Judah of the king") and given its placement and the surrounding other 150 names in the list. As a placename it also might not match Judah since most of the other names are small sites except for a couple/few (Negeb, Edom, Judah?) It is suggested by some that it is the town Yehudah, belonging to the king. Even if it could possibly be Judah it still doesn't mention Jerusalem (yet there are heaps of other town/city names in the list). King So's campaign could have claimed to include Judah? It also doesn't give the king's name so it is only theory it could be Rehoboam.
In contrast some sources specifically say Ramses II's campaign included Jerusalem & Judah.

"Head wound match":
Bible doesn't say or imply Shishak got a head wound.

Temple match:
Sheshonk 1 built 2 temples, in Memphis & in Karnak/Thebes. The one in Thebes is described as "the greatest temple area ever constructed by human hands". This could be comparable to Solomon's temple, and/or could have been for housing the taken treasure shields/treasures.
However, lots of other pharaoh's built temples too, including Seti 1 and Ramses 2.
Re Sheshonk a "Temple at Zn" lots of pharoahs had temples. Zn name connects how? Zion? Not much of a name and place [and time] match.

Gold match:
The bible says Shishak took the treasures of the temple of the Lord and of the king's house, including the gold shields that Solomon made. Some conventional sources claim that "the treasures taken by Shishak are also highly unlikely" and "should probably be seen as a theological construct rather than as historical references" (refs Wiki, Finkelstein). Conventional scholars make out that the golden treasures taken by Shishak may match with that Sheshonk's son had a gold bracelet, and he (the son) gave gifts of gold & silver amounting to 200,000 kg / 200 or 373 tons, "much more ... than any other pharaoh records giving". (Gold trinity of Osorkhon II. Gold funerary mask of Sheshonk II.)
However, they admit that the bracelet only "may have been" made from the temple gold, and that "Nothing tells us where this gold came from but it seems reasonable to suppose that much of it was the gold that Shishak carried away" (ref Millard). How come they can use words like "probably", "may", "seems", "suppose", while I have sometimes been unfairly criticised for using a few similar words? "The inscription refers in general terms to tribute given to Sosenk. But where are the spoils, the furnature and vessels of the temple of Solomon? Was 'Shishak' so modest that he did not mention the capital he conquered and the rich booty of the temple...?" (Ref Velikovsky 'Ages in Chaos' pg 188.)
There are other possible sources for the gold of Sheshonk & his successors. Nubia's name means gold. Gold could have come from the Atlantean Sea Peoples? Gold could also have been recyled from previous centuries.
There are plenty of other pharaoh's who were also associated with gold treasures. Tutankhamen's tomb is famous for its golden treasures. Amenhotep III gave gifts of "innumerable masses of gold, silver and copper" (ref Bey). Gold is represented as being brought in tribute in many nobles tombs of the 18th & 19th dynasties (ref Clayton's Chronicle). Seti 2 & Tewosret had gold jewelery (ref Clayton). Gold ear-plugs of Ramses XI (Clayton). Gold braclets of Psusennes/Amenmope (21st dyn). Silver coffin & gold face-mask of Psusennes (21st dyn). Gold pectorals and gold funerary mask of Amenmope (21st dyn).
Re: Sheshonk's "Gold mask" doesn't prove anything, lots of Pharoahs had gold.
Sheshonk's "383 tons of gold". Lots of pharoahs had certain amounts ofgold. The only gold Shishak specifically said to have taken was gold shields.

Zerah match:
The conventional chronology supposes that the biblical Shishak matches Sheshonk 1 and that the a little later biblical king Zerah matches Osorkhon.
However, the match of the name Zerah with Osorkhon is not very convincing. Also, Osorkhon has no match for being called an Ethiopian as Zerah was. Plus, Sheshonk 1's son Osorkhon 1 "was not strong enough to follow his [father's] example as a conqueror" (ref Millard). And, "Sheshonk's campaign was for a long time the last. Not for more than 300 yrs was Egypt again in a position to enforce its ancient claim to the suzeraintiy of the Syria-Palestine territories." (Ref Keller.) Ramses 3 was the last great pharaoh. A conventional scholar even claimed that they don't match Zerah with Osorkhon anyway. He also claimed that Zerah was an Ethiopian king not an Egyptian king, but surely he had to come through Egypt to get to Judah (unless he came across the Red Sea and through Arabia which seems unlikely). (Zerah may match Terah in Ugarit texts and Sera in the Ethiopian king list?) Shishak defiietly seems to instead match Ramses 2, though I am not sure who Zerah may match. There are some possible candidates for Zerah in the 19th or 20th dynasty.

Lubims match:
Shishak came out of Egypt with Lubim(s). Sheshonk was the founder of the 22nd dynasty which was Libyan/Bubastite/Tanite. Another supposed match of the conventional scholars.
However, firstly the name Lubims might not even match Libyans, some say it might be Lydian, or it might match Nubian (there being an n/l interchange in Hamito-Semitic, and within/between some other languages such as Celtic). Biblical scholars claim the biblical Lehabim and Lubims both match Libyan. In Egyptian there has been uncertainty whether a name reads Libyan or Arab (l/r interchange).
But if we accept that Lubims probably does match Libyans (or Nubians), well there are other pharaohs also associated with Libya (or Nubia). Tutankhamen campaigned against Nubians/Libyans & Syrians/Asiatics (refs Clayton, Wiki). Seti 1 & Ramses 2 had campaigns/raids in Libya (refs Bey, Clayton), and they are both connected with the Thuhi/Thuhen/Tuheni "the light or fair people" of Libya. The name Libya is first known to be mentioned in the 19th dynasty in the reign of Merneptah immediately after Ramses 2 our alternative Shishak candidate.

Hiram match:
Shishak was a contemporary of Solomon who was contemporary of the Phoenician king Hiram of Tyre. (Though Hiram was earlier in David's reign and in Solomon's reign, while Shishak was later in Solomon's reign and in Rehoboam's reign.)
The conventional Shishak candidate Sheshonk 1 was a king of the 22nd dynasty which has associations with Fankhu and with some Phoenician kings (refs Massey, Rohl, Clayton? Moscati?)
However, as far as I know Sheshonk 1 is not associated with a king Hiram? And the Phoenician kings that the 22nd dynasty has synchronous associations with seem to be later Phoenician kings sometime after Hiram during the time of Israel and Judah?
The synchronism of Herihor/Wenamun (21st dyn) with Zekarbaal might also be connected with the Phoenician king Yeharbaal?
On the other hand our Shishak candidate Ramses 2 is associated with an Ahiram (ref Moscati?) (Hiram's name is also possibly similar to Horemhab or Piramses?) Seti 1 "annihilated the kings of the land of the Phoenicians" (Bey). Bey also mentions pictures of Ramses 2's victories over the Phoenicians.
Re: Sheshonk "worked with Hiram of Tyre". I haven't seen Sheshonk linked with Hiram (more details please)? Ramses is connected with an Ahiram (Moscati?)

Sukkim match & Kussiim match:
Shishak came out of Egypt with Lubim(s) "Libyans", Sukkiim "nomads" and Kussiim "Cushites/Ethiopians".
For the conventional Shishak candidate Sheshonk 1 I haven't seen or heard of any match for the Sukkiim & Kussiim? The Ethiopian 25th dynasty was some time after the 22nd dynasty.
Meanwhile our Shishak candidate might have a possible match:
Seti 1 and Ramses 2 are both connected with the Thuhi/Thuhen/Tuheni "the light or fair people" of Libya (and with Tuhir "chosen ones") (ref Bey). (There is sometimes an s(h) / t(h) interchange between Egyptian & Hebrew as seen in Egyptian Thufi "reedy lake" and Hebrew Yam Suph "sea of reeds/weeds". In Hebrew the suffix -im is sometimes -in, and/or m & n sometimes interchange in some languages.) Alternatively, Sqrssw/Shekelesh are mentioned in Ramses 2's Sherden campaign.) Seti and Ramses are also both connected with Cush/Nubia (refs Bey, Clayton).

Chariots & horses match, & Numbers match:
Shishak came with 1200 chariots and 60000 horsemen, and abit later Zerah came with a million men and 300 chariots.
Conventional chronology asserts that chariots/horses were first introduced by the Hyksos (15th/16th dynasty), so this could match their Shishak candidate Sheshonk (22nd dynasty), though it could also match our candidate Ramses 2. I have not seen/heard of any definite connection of chariots & horses with Sheshonk's campaign though? Some conventional scholars even claim that "no evidence of Egyptian cavalry exists from before the 27th dynasty", which would rule out even the conventional Shishak candidate.
Meanwhile there are some matches with our Shishak candidate Ramses 2. Horses and/or chariots figure in events of the 15th and 18th and 19th dynasties in Egypt and Canaan/Israel/Palestine (Clayton, Wyatt). Ramses 2 "gathered together one of the greatest forces of Egyptian troops ever seen, 20000 men in four divisions of 5000 each.... .... The Hittite king assembled an army even greater .... In two sections of about 18000 and 19000 men, plus 2500 chariots...." (Ref Clayton's 'Chronicle of Pharaohs'.) Ramses built factories which produced "some 1000 weapons... about 250 chariots in 2 weeks...." (ref Wiki). Also, Rohl suggested the Merneptah stele's connection with horses/chariots may indicate a date not before Solomon in the bible?
Some orthodox scholars have previously claimed that "the numbers of the Egyptian soliders given in Chronicles can be safely ignored as impossible on Egyptological grounds", or exagerated by a factor of 10, and are "logistically impossible" (ref Wikipedia). Yet the numbers of Ramses 2 given above are similar to the biblical numbers of Shishak.

Gezer match, & Pharaoh's daughter match, & Ano match?
The bible says Pharaoh took Gezer and later gave it to Solomon who had married a daughter his, and Jewish tradition says the pharaoh was Shishak. Jewish tradition also says Jeroboam married Ano the sister of queen Thelkemina the wife of king Shishak/Susakim (though this is only a tradition and might not be true).
Do the conventional scholars have any match of these with their Shishak candidate Sheshonk 1?
There might be matches with our Shishak candidate Ramses 2.
Rohl identifies the pharaoh that took Gezer with Horemhab before he was pharaoh when he was acting under Tutankhamen. Though I am not sure of this match.
Labaya sacked Gezer in the Amarna letter.
Gezer is mentioned in the Merneptah stele.
Ano could possibly be Ramses 2's daughter Bint-Anat "daughter of Anat"?
Perhaps compare that Ramses 2 "married the daughter of the king of Kheta. The prince of Kheta ... conducted the bride to his son-in-law."

Ugarit match?
A 'Swsk' (and a 'Terah/Zerah') is mentioned in Ugaritic texts, which might be connected with the biblical Shishak (and Zerah)? The fire at Ugarit was after Akhenaten who is conected with Ugarit in the Amarna letters, or after Merneptah whose name was found in Ugarit?

Son of David match:
Shehsonk "Son of DuD". Dud doesn't match David, and a son of Did is mentioned in Merneptah's inscription anyway.

First use of title and name match:
They say that Shishak is the first named pharaoh in the bible, and that this matches with that in Egypt they first used the name pharaoh together with the rulers name from the time of Siamon (21st dyn) onwards.
Criticism: The first use of Pharaoh and name Siamon/etc together, and of King and name Shishak/etc doesn't prove anything. It may be coincidence.
Every book of the bible was written by different authors. The word write is first mentioned after Dophkah. Kings/Chronicles finishing date can't date until after Zedekiah.
Josephus has Pharaohs until Solomon, and Newton has Gods until Merneptah (and I think Herodotus has similar?)
Pharoah Siamon is different to King Shishak (one has pharoah, other has king). Zerah is not called king or pharaoh. So is only called king. (And some of them have the title and name in reverse order to the Egyptian pharaoh + name.) The earliest and only biblical use of Pharaoh and name is with Necho and Hophra just a few times.
2 Kings 18:21 only says Pharaoh king of Egypt, no name.
2 Kings 23:35a only says Pharaoh at first.
Isaiah 19:11 only says princes of Zoan, and Pharaoh.
Same with many other verses of books' chapters after Shishak except for just a few about Necho and Hophra.
"First time use title pharaoh and name together" doesn't really match "first time called king and first time a name given".
Egypt had name, then name or pharaoh, then pharaoh & name.
Bible has pharaoh &/or king, then name & king, then pharaoh & name.
So there's no match of time of Shishak & time of Sheshonk.
Rohl also gives evidence that the 21st & 22nd dynasties were contemporary, so Sheshonk might come before Siamun?

"Can't be sandwiched between Egypt & Hittites" match:
Israel sandwiched between Egypt and Hittite and they wouldn't have tolerated each other, and there supposedly wouldn't be no mutual mentions of each other doesn't necessarily prove anything. There are very few mutual mentionings throughout Egyptian and Biblical and Mesopotamian history? (Saul's &) David & Solomon's kingdom was only 80 (to 120) years. Egyptian rule was weak in the Heretic kings and Amarna period (David's times). Between Akhenaten and Ramses II the only major campaigns were Seti 1's which seemingly only were along the coast and north. If Ramses 2 was Shishak his campaign was early in his reign, and does not conflict with Solomon who married pharaoh's daughter or with Rehoboam who Shishak invaded in year 5. Hittites were up in Syria or even north of Syria not in Palestine/Canaan/Israel as you/someone said, so only possibly a conflict with David's & Solomon's kingdom including Aram. Absence of evidence doesn't prove. Bible doesn't have to mention them and they don't have to mention Israel. Bible does mention kings of Hittites in the kings period. Hittites possibly mention David as "Taitas/Tette/Da-te-wa/Daitewas/Dait-as/Eudaita/E(h)u-daitas king of land of Palastina/Walastina"? Egyptian mentions of "Suppiluliuma" could possibly be confounded with Solomon, and references to king of Hatti might even be Israel/Judah?

Sequential Egyptian-Biblical matches:
The conventional chronology implies that other sequential Egyptian-Biblical matches support their Sheshonk-Shishak match.

11th/12th dyn - patriarchs ("1900s" bc)
15th/16th dyn (Hyksos) - Joseph/Jacob ("1700s" bc)
15th/16th-19th dyn (400 yrs) - 430 yrs Jose to Moses
18th dyn (Amarna) - "Israel not in Canaan"
19th dyn - Moses/exodus, Israel, Philistines ("1300/1200s" bc)
20th dyn - Philistines/Saul
21th dyn - David (1000s bc)
22nd dyn - Shishak (900s bc), Zerah
25th dyn - So, Tirhakah, Assyrians
26th dyn - Necho (600s bc), Hophra
27th & 31st dyn - Persians.

However, when we investigate each of these we find that a number of them are weak and wrong.
They have no match for Biblical before the 11th or 12th dynasty, and they have the patriarchs and Joseph to late in overall Egyptian history (while they are earlier in overall bibical history), and they have to fit 11/12 dynasties in between the Flood and patriarchs.
They have Egyptian chronology too long/old and Biblical too short/late.
They have no proof of Joseph & associated persons during the Hyksos period. Indeed they admit they find no trace of Joseph in Egypt [then].
The Amarna texts could fit any time down to when David took Jerusalem, not just down to Joshua.
The San tablet of 400 years from Hyksos king to 19th dynasty king they themselves now claim that there is no Hyksos king name only a god name, and many also claim that it is 215 not 430 yrs from Joseph to Moses. If there is a Hyksos prince name, then the 400 years could better match the 480 years from Moses to Solomon than the 430 years from Joseph to Moses.
They admit they can find no trace of Moses and the exodus in their 19th dynasty placement.
It is admitted that their "1300" or "1200s" placement of Moses conflicts with the bible's placement of 480 years before Solomon (900s bc) or ca 1400s bc.
They have less than 480 years from their "exodus in the 19th dyn" to "Shishak/Shehsonk". (Though they try to dismiss this by saying it may be 12 generations rather than 480 years.)
They admit they can find no traces of Joshua's Jericho in their Iron Age strata placement.
They have Saul, David & Shishak spread over 3 dynasties.
We show in this article that the match of Shishak with Sheshonk is weak, and the only pillar they have that is supposedly difficult to disprove is the association with the Assyrian king list. Their Zerah match with Osorkhon is weak.
The names match of So with Shabaka/Sabaco seems dubious.
Meanwhile others have found better Egyptian-Biblical matches in earlier dynasties. Tentative table of better matches:

1st dyn - Abraham?
3rd-4th dyn (Khufu) - Joseph (Jacob)
12th dyn - Moses/exodus
15th/16th dyn Hyksos - between Moses and David
15th-19th (400 yrs) - 480 yrs Moses to Solomon
18th dyn (Amarna) - David, Agur?
19th dyn (Ramses 2) - Shishak
21st &/or 22nd (& 23rd) dyn - Zoan & Noph?
21st or 22nd dyn - So
22nd dyn - Phoenicians, Assyrians?
25th dyn - Tirhakah? Assyrians
26th dyn - Necho, Hophra
27th & 31st dyn - Persians

We can not fit all the details of all the matches in this article. See separate articles of mine and others (including Rohl, Down, Wyatt, Courville, Velikovsky, Hoeh, etc). In this article we show that Shishak could match Ramses 2, and So could match Psusenes or Shoshenq or Osorkhon.

480 yrs match:
The Bible has 480 yrs from the exodus to Solomon (& Shishak).
The conventional chronology places Moses in the 19th dynasty and Shishak in the 22nd dynasty, but there are less than 480 years between them
We place the exodus at the end of the 12th dynasty, and Shishak in the 19th dynasty, and there are abot the same as 480 yrs between these two in conventional chronology.

"The Hebrews knew the name Ramses so its unlikely they called Ramses 2 Shishak".
This is not really infallible proof that Ramses wasn't called Shishak.
The biblical Rameses & Raamses might not even be the Egyptian name Ramses, and they are place names not king names, and they definitely don't match the 19th dynasty but match centuries earlier dynasty.
Even if the names are the same every book of the bible was written by different authors at different times.
Kings etc being called by different names is not unknown in history. They knew Babylon's name but called it Sheshach.
You have to show that the Israelites knew Ramses 2 by that name.
The critic themselves said Sheshe/Shysha is "known from a bowl from Serabit el Khadim" which is not far from Judah. (There were Semites & alphabet at Serabit el Khadim.)

Date match:
The biblical Shishak has a biblical date of ca 900s bc.
The conventional Shishak candidate Sheshonk I has an ascribed supposed date of 900s bc, and so they claim that Shishak "can" match Sheshonk.
They say that Shishak can't match the earlier Ramses 2 because there are more regnal years in the Assyrian king list between the two synchronisms of Amarna & Ashuruballit and Osorkhon 4 & Sargon 2.
However, the conventional chronology has virtually no real solid proof of the ascribed dates of the dynasties. The ascribed dates largely hinge only on the Assyrian king list along with a few other "scientific" dating methods supposedly supporting eac other. All their "scientific" dating methods (sothaic, Apis bulls, eclipses, regnal years, carbon dating, "Shishak/Sheshonk", Thera, tree rings, Venus tablets, etc) are unreliable as they all have problems (though they refuse to admit it with most of them except for a few). We can not give the evidences on all these dating methods in this article, see our separate article on this. We will only address here that one main dating method for their Shishak/Sheshonk correspondence, and discuss the one main objection to our Shishak/Ramses 2 correspondence.
The only major basis for the Sheshonk-Shishak match is the calculated supposed "synchronism" with the Assyrian king list. They calculate back from a real historical synchronism between Osorkhon 4 & Sargon 2 thus:

Egypt - Bible - Assyria:
1 ... - Shishak/Rehoboam/Jeroboam - ...
2 ... - Ahab - Shalmaneser 3
3 ... - Jehu - Shalmaneser 3
4 Osorkhon 4/Shilkanni 4 - Isaiah - Sargon 2.

However, there is no confirmation proof of horizontal match between Egyptian and biblical for 1 (except theoretical problematic "Shishak = Sheshonk"), 2, and 3.
There is no conformation proof of horizontal match between Biblical and Assyrian for 1 (except vertical calculations). The match with Ahab or Jehu is also said to be uncertain (ref Oxford).
There is no conformation proof of horizontal match between the Egyptian and Assyrian for 1-3 (except vertical calculations).
There is no confirmation proof of vertical calculation for Egyptian 1-3. Most of the Egyptian king lists do not cover the dynasties after the 19th dynasty except for Manetho. One list of regnal years of the 22nd dynasty only selected the highest reign lengths to match Shishak.
There is no confirmation proof of vertical calculation for Assyrian The Assyrian king list surely doesn't include co-regencies.
The vertical biblical king lists also have varying possible lengths due to some uncertain matches between Israel & Judah kings and unsureness about coregencies.
1. The 2nd Ahab & 3rd Jehu matches are also said to be uncertain. As for the objection that Shishak can't match the earlier Ramses 2 because of the Assyrian king list regnal years between the 2 historical synchronisms:
The problem here is that they basically hinge Egyptian chronology on the Assyrian king list and treat the list as infallible. "Many of our important source documents, such as the Assyrian King List, are the products of government and religious establishments, with a natural bias in favor of the king or god in charge. .... The Assyrians in particular have a literary tradition of putting the best possible face on history, a fact the interpreter must constantly keep in mind."
Biblical research suggests that the Assyrian king list must be wrong somewhere, though it is hard to see where/how except that it seems there must be coregencies. Some Assyrian pictures suggest that there may have been 2 co-kings of Assyria at some times. The bible says "kings (plural) of Assyria" in a few places. I analysed the regnal years throughout the whole Assyrian king list and noticed strange patterns of the numbers which do seem to suggest co-regencies. The eponyms might only be for each king? (It is not easy to find how to show these patterns in writing or pictures though.)
Some alternative dating evidences may include:
Shechem was founded in Jacob's time, and Shechem is mentioned in 12th dynasty Execration Texts, which means Jacob can't be later than the 12th dynasty.
Herodotus said Moeris (12th dyn) was only 900 yrs before [Amasis 2], which give a date roughly the same as Moses in the bible.
Herodotus said Menes was (1)1340 yrs before Seti (19th dyn), and Josephus said Menes was 1300 yrs before Solomon/Shishak, which gives a date for Menes of not more than 2300s bc, and makes Seti & Shishak near contemporaries in the ca 900s bc. Josephus has Pharaohs until Solomon, and Newton has Gods until Merneptah, which makes Solomon/Shishak and Merneptah near contemporaries?
Unfortunately though orthodox scholars unfairly reject/dismiss sources like Herodotus, Bible, Josephus, etc that conflict with them as being supposedly "unreliable" or "not authorities", though they don't prove that the specific information is untrue, while we show that the informations agree with our matches and with other sources/evidences. Herodotus' sources were ancient Egyptian priests. These sources are ancient as opposed to just modern theoretical sources.
The 18th dynasty 'Hymn to Aten' has similarities with Psalm 104, which might mean they were close in time.
Tut's ark/chest is similar to the Ark of the Covenant of David's & Solomon's time, which might suggest they were close in time?
The New Kingdom Ramesside 20th dynasty 'Instruction of Amenmope(t)' has been said to have similarities with the Proverbs of Solomon, which might suggest they were close in time.
A number of orthodox and other sources agree that the 3rd Intermediate Period is a difficult/confused/obscure period of which the chronology is not certain (Velikovsky, Rohl, Peter James, us).
Some scholars showed that names of the 22nd dynasty kings are similar to Assyrian & Elamite names (Osorkhon/Sargon, Takeloth/Tiglath, Nimlot/Nimrod, Shoshenk/Shushinak), which might mean that this dynasty was during the Assyrian period?
Even the orthodox chronology at the time of this article has dyns 21 & 22, 22 & 23, 23 & 24, 25 & 26 overlapping.
David Rohl "offers inscriptions that list three non-royal genealogies which, when one attributes 20 to 23 years to a generation, show, according to Rohl, that Ramesses II flourished in the 10th century BC.... .... He also argues that there are no genealogies that confirm the conventional dates for Ramesses II in the 13th century BC".
Rohl also says the lunar observation date for Ramses 2 could equally apply to a date 300 years later.
If we were to accept astronomical dates were reliable then Rohl also suggests that the near-sunset solar eclipse observed at Ugarit in Akhenaten's reign could date to 1012 bc.
There is a gap in the Apis bulls sequence between the 20th & 22nd dynasties.
Rohl "also argues that the reburial sequence of the mummies of the New Kingdom pharaohs in the Royal Cache (TT 320) shows that these two dynasties were contemporary (thus explaining why there are too few Apis burials for the period). Rohl finds that in the royal burial ground at Tanis it appears that the tomb of Osorkon II of the 22nd Dynasty was built before that of Psusennes I of the 21st Dynasty; in Rohl's view this can only be explained if the two dynasties were contemporary."
One scholar reckons that "Using Manetho & the Piankhi stela we must note that Pimay surrenders in 715 bc, & his reign includes the 122nd year of the power period of XXII. Thus we have a fold that gets rid of over 100 years & destroys the Shishak = Shoshenq canard."
The bible mentions the princes of Zoan & Noph during the time of kings of Israel & Judah. Zoan is often supposed to be Tanis. The 21st dynasty and the 22nd dynasty of Sheshonk 1 and the 23rd dynasty were Tanite. Noph is supposed to be Memphis, though it might be a mistake for No-amon (Thebes). The 17th to 21st dyasties were Theban. Sheshonk 1 built temples in Memphis & Karnak/Thebes.
"Community Fluoridation" = compulsory Mass Medication.

Post Reply