| Revision as of 21:51, 7 April 2008 editLeoboudv (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers21,173 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:18, 1 December 2009 edit undoDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Oversighters, Administrators263,803 edits moving content to Shishak, the most common spelling, see talk page | ||
| (39 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Shishak''' (]: שישק, ]: ) or '''Shishaq''' is the biblical ] form of the first ancient Egyptian name of a ] mentioned in the Bible. | |||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| ==Shishaq identified as Pharaoh Shoshenq I== | |||
| In the very early years after the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs, on chronological, historical, and linguistic grounds, nearly all Egyptologists identified Shishaq with ]. This position was maintained by most scholars ever since, and is still the majority position. The fact that Shoshenq I left behind "explicit records of a campaign into Palestine (scenes; a long list of Palestinian place-names from the Negev to Galilee; stelae), including a stela at ]" supports the traditional interpretation.<ref>K.A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, William Erdsman & Co, 2003. pp.10, 32-34 & p.607 Page 607 of Kitchen's book depicts the fragment of Shoshenq I's Megiddo stela</ref> | |||
| ==Shishaq identified as another Pharaoh== | |||
| However, the Egyptologist ], controversially proposed a massive revision of the traditional chronology of the ancient Near East, and attempted to identify Shishaq with ]. A few scholars, such as ], who accept Rohl's criticism of identifying Shishaq with Shoshenq I while not his other theories, have sought to identify Shishaq with one of the other ]es of this period with varying success. The so-called "James" chronology was first developed by Michael Sanders and published in "Catastrophism and Ancient History" in 1985 many years before James published his revision. | |||
| ], and other followers of the New Chronology, assert that the identification of Shishaq as Shoshenq I is based solely on a reading made by ] of the text of Shoshenq’s Triumphal Relief near the Bubastite Portal of the temple of ] at ]. There, in a list of cities Shoshenq I had boasted he conquered, Champollion had read the 29th city from the list as ''y-w-d-h-m-r-k''. He then surmised that this could mean ''Yhuda Malkhut'' (]: יְהוּדָה מַלְכוּת, ]: ), that is, "Judah Kingdom" — an unlikely Hebrew phrase, ''Malkhut Yhuda'' would be more natural — and concluded this list referred to the biblical Shishaq's invasion of Judah. However, ] (building on a related proposal by ]) later showed that ''y-w-d-h-m-r-k'' (yud-he-merek) should be read in Hebrew as Yad Ha-Melekh (יַדְ־הַמֶּלֶך, ]: meaning "Monument (lit. "hand") of the King", to the king of Judah. | |||
| Further, much controversy has resulted because from the list of cities in this inscription it appears that the target of Shoshenq's campaign was not the heartland of the kingdom of Judah (which is what the Bible seems to imply), but the northern cities that became the kingdom of Israel. Many of the cities listed are known today and their order clearly indicates the progression of a military campaign. The conquest of Jerusalem would have been given pride of place, not buried between two insignificant hill-towns hundreds of miles away. It could be Shoshenq only listed the cities he either destroyed, or whose garrisons he defeated in support of the break-away kingdom of Israel. It may be, however, that the text only lists cities that the Egyptians regarded as under their political control, and so not intended to be read as an itinerary or list of directly conquered cities at all, which would be in line with similar lists from elsewhere in Egypt. | |||
| Rohl further argued that Shishaq does not properly equate to how the Egyptian name Shoshenq would have been spelled by the contemporary Hebrews, and put forth his own identification of Shishaq with ], based on the ] form ''sysw'' which he claimed was used to refer to Ramesses and abused by the ] into ''sysq'' (which Rohl claims is a pun on verbal root שׁקק ''šqq'', the ] word for "to attack, fall upon, storm"). | |||
| In order for the name Shishaq to be read as Shoshenq, the "n" must be dropped—which automatically happens in ] before a ]—but for it to agree with ''sysw'', a "q" must be added, which does not correspond to any known ] rule in Biblical Hebrew other than puns, which are a bit more rare than ] seems to suggest. In ] ] (such as Hebrew) /š/ is usually used to record Egyptian /š/ and rarely /s/ after a certain point (as would be the case for ''sysw''), though it has been shown, by ], that it was used in a number of cases, such as in Goshen, which derives from the Egyptian ''gsm''.<ref>Muchiki 1999:315.</ref> This does not hold for ] such as ], where confusion between /s/ and /š/ is evident. Rohl seems to suggest in his thesis that any "Semitic" evidence (such as Akkadian) will support his theory with very little caution.<ref>Rohl 1995:162</ref>. Though Akkadian was used quite often throughout many ancient empires in correspondence, for this to be fully supported, one would probably need to assume his ] is correct. | |||
| In response to Rohl's theory, Egyptologists such as ] have pointed out that no other known king of Egypt fits the identification as well as Shoshenq I. Setting the reign of Ramesses II three centuries later would not only cause complications with the date of the ], it would also conflict with the chronology of ] history and with the very solid chronology of ]n history. | |||
| ==Shishaq's Reign== | |||
| He is best known for his campaign through Palestine, as recorded in the ] (] 11:40; 14:25; ] 12:2-9). Shishaq had provided refuge to ] during the later years of ]'s reign, and upon Solomon's death, Jeroboam became king of the breakaway tribes in the north, which became the ]. In the fifth year of ]'s reign (commonly dated between 926 and 917 BC), Shishaq swept through the ] with a powerful army, in support of his ally. According to 2 Chronicles, he was supported by "the ], the ], and the ]ns." Shishaq captured a number of cities of that kingdom, including ], where he pillaged the temple and the royal palace, and carried away the shields of gold which ] had made. Although Judah was humbled, hostilities still continued between the two kingdoms; yet this was the only recorded intervention of a third party into the affairs of these two kingdoms during Rehoboam's reign. | |||
| ==Shishaq's name== | |||
| Texts written in various ancient languages seem to indicate that the first vowel was both ] and ], and the final vowel was short. For example, the name is written in the ] as שישק . The variant readings in ], which are due to confusion between the letters < י > ''Yod'' and < ו > ''Vav'' that are particularly common in the ], indicate that the first vowel was long and received emphasis in pronunciation. The ] uses Σουσακιμ , derived from the ] שושק of ]. This indicates during the ] Hebrew-speakers or Alexandrian Greek-speakers pronounced the name with an initial long ] . | |||
| ==Notes== | |||
| <div class="references-small"><references/></div> | |||
| ==References== | |||
| *{{cite book | author= Muchiki Yoshiyuki | year= 1999 | title= Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic | publisher= Society of Biblical Literature | location= Atlanta }} | |||
| *{{cite book | author= Rohl, David M. | authorlink = David Rohl | year= 1995 | title= Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest | publisher= Crown Publishers, inc. | location= New York}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 16:18, 1 December 2009
Redirect to: