Replies

The problem here is one of equivilating the Biblical Shishak with the Pharoah Sheshonq (also spelled Shishank)... perhaps, and actually probably, they were NOT THE SAME PERSON! The assumption they are one and the same exists because of two factors: the first is the "accepted" Egyptian time line that is based on the belief that Moses interacted with Ramses (2) the Great, and the second is the mere similarities in names... which are not really similar at all.

This entire problem goes away once you realize that The Saul/David stories are actually contemporaneous with the dynasty that culminated with Tut-Ankh-en-Amon, King Tut. In fact the reports of the events described in the Bible are found in the Amarna Letters, a collection of clay tablet reports from satrap kings, ambassadors and governors of the Levantine area sent to Pharoah's court. These letters include names that would be familiar to any Bible scholar... names such as Jesse, Jonathon, Lebayu (translates as "The Young Lion"... and David's adherents were caller the "followers of the Young Lion!").

The inscriptions at Karnak that list the cities conquered that includes Meggidio ALSO include Jerusalem as a conquered city... the Pharoah who accomplished that task is RAMSES THE GREAT... who was also called among his many names, SehSeh for short, which refers to the two folded bolts of cloth symbols (S) found in the cartouche of his official Royal name.

The Hebrews spoke the Egyptian "Seh" as "Sheh" or "Shah", so the Egyptian name for Ramses of SehSeh would be spoken as "Shehsheh" or "Shahshah" The keepers of the Hebrew oral tradition may not have been able to prevent themselves from adding a "KH" sound to ShehSheh(kh) which translates as "He who destroys or conquers" in Hebrew, making the name of the conquering Pharoah into a descriptive hypocoristicon of his name, a "pun" if you will. Now add in the fact that WRITTEN Hebrew (Particularly early Hebrew) does not include vowels and that vowels were a matter of opinion, it is easy to see how "ShehShehkh" was transliterated into the ShiShak of the Bible!

Incidentally, the fact that Ramses the Great conquered Jerusalem is pretty strong evidence that he could not have been the Pharoah of the Exodus... since Jerusalem had yet to be founded when those events occured.