Is Ramesses II the pharaoh Shishak of the Bible?

[RevTestament]

David Rohl opines that Champollion who first deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphics mistranslated a key name ring, which lead to a false belief that pharaoh Shoshenk was the Shishak of the Bible. This is basically his reasoning:

 Rameses is the Greek version of the great Rameses II. His Egyptian name is Usermaatre-setepenre. The Hittites wrote it as Wahmuariya-shatapnariya in the Treaty of Kadesh. His birth name was Ramesses-meriamun which becomes Riyamashisha-miamana. From this came a shortened name of Shisha by which he was known all over the Levant. David Rohl believes a Hebrew scribe misread an ancient waw as a Qoph because the Waw of the 15th century became a Qoph of the 9th century BC. If Ramesses II is the pharaoh of the invasion of Jerusalem during the reign of Jeroboam, that would move at least a part of the chronology of Egypt forward 300 years. However, David Rohl glosses over any invasion of Ramesses into Judah. To do this he depends on the Merneptah Stele, which says:
"The princes are prostrate, saying 'Peace!' Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows. 
Desolation is for Tjehuenu[Libya], Hatti[Hittites] is pacified.
Plundered is pa-Canaan[Gaza] with every evil; carried off is Ashkelon, seized upon is Gezer.
Israel is laid waste - his seed is no more; Kharru has become a widow because of Egypt.
All lands together are pacified. Everyone who was restless has become bound."
David then maintains that the first kingdoms are campaigns of Seti, and the last five are from campaigns of Ramesses as depicted on the temple walls of Karnak. So he maintains that the poem is a summary of the campaigns of his dynastic predecessors.

David places the exodus at the time of a minor pharaoh, Dudimose.

I am not an Egyptologist. What do you think of this drastic change in chronology? He does seem to make some good points, but I have some strong opinions about the exodus, and I believe him to be wrong. I seem to lack amo though.
 

[Robert F. Smith]

The Exodus took place most likely in the 16th century BC, as I point out in detail in my “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu .

Although Egyptian kings often made outlandish claims about victories, even when they lost, and used formulaic lists of booty, the dates of the 19th dynasty Ramesside kings is secure, and Shishak I of the 22nd dynasty doesn't show up until Solomon is dead (1 Kings 14:25).  On Ramesses II, see my “Ramses II BYU Exhibit: Supplementary Comments on the Artifacts,” FARMS Preliminary Report, SMI-86 (Provo: FARMS, 1986), online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/54423164/Ramses-II-BYU-Exhibit-Supplementary-Comments-on-the-Artifacts-FARMS-Preliminary-Report-SMI-86-Provo-FARMS-1986 .

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Exodus took place most likely in the 16th century BC, as I point out in detail in my “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu .

Although Egyptian kings often made outlandish claims about victories, even when they lost, and used formulaic lists of booty, the dates of the 19th dynasty Ramesside kings is secure, and Shishak I of the 22nd dynasty doesn't show up until Solomon is dead (1 Kings 14:25).  On Ramesses II, see my “Ramses II BYU Exhibit: Supplementary Comments on the Artifacts,” FARMS Preliminary Report, SMI-86 (Provo: FARMS, 1986), online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/54423164/Ramses-II-BYU-Exhibit-Supplementary-Comments-on-the-Artifacts-FARMS-Preliminary-Report-SMI-86-Provo-FARMS-1986 .

I figured at least you would respond Robert, so thanks. Let me make Rohl's point better. 

This is the wall describing the invasion of Shoshenk, founder of the 22nd dynasty.

Champollion, who was the first to begin translating Egyptian hieroglyphics in 1822 using the Rosetta Stone, translated one of the 150 name rings describing his campaign as "Yudah-ha-Malkuth" or Judah the kingdom. However, Rohl says later Egyptology translates this name as Yad-ha-Melek or the Hand of the King. Two name rings away appears Aruna, which is known to be near Tyre. So out of the approximately 150 name rings on this Egyptian list, it appears none are in Judah. Instead they are in the Negev desert and Israel to the north. So he concludes there is no Egyptian evidence for an invasion by Shoshenk into Judah as the Bible describes by Shishak. In addition Rohl points out that the Bible claims Rehoboam of Israel made an alliance with the Egyptian pharaoh at the time the Bible says Shishak defeated Jeroboam and took all the temple riches. He concludes therefore that the Pharaoh wouldn't have invaded Israel as Shoshenk brags of doing. Of course the alliance may have ended, but still there is apparently no Egyptian evidence that Shoshenk invaded Judah. He seemed to completely avoid Judah. David Rohl then alleges that Shishak is actually a Hebrew mistranslation of Shisha which was a common "nickname" of Ramesses II. David alleges a scribe didn't realize the name was originally spelled without a Qoph, and that by reading it with a qoph Shisha became Shishak. I completely disagree with Rohl about other points of his chronology. He alleges a palace at Avaris was Joseph's, however, he glosses over facts like that palace had a temple dedicated to an asiatic storm god and a Minoan-style frescoe, and other things which don't fit his allegations. Joseph would not have built such an edifice, although I suppose the palace could have been remodeled by the Hyksos. However, Rohl places the exodus before the Hyksos in his new chronology so a Hyksos remodeling of the palace becomes a feasible allegation. Nevertheless, I believe the Hyksos were contemporaneous with the Hebrews and were the "enemies" the Egyptians were worried the Hebrews would join with, so they enslaved the Hebrews completely once the Hyksos were driven out. I believe Rohl's exodus in the mid 17th century is too early. Initial C14 dating of Jericho places the destruction in the mid 16th century and Cypriot pottery seems to place it slightly later than that - into the 15th century BC. 

My questions are:

1. Is chronology truly firmly secured with Shoshenk as the biblical Shishak? Are there letters to or from Egyptian pharaohs to other ancient kings whom we can firmly independently place in time with C14 dating or otherwise? For instance the Amarna letters mention various other kings such as Akhenaten and Amenhotep III of Egypt, Burra-Buriyaš and Kadašman-Enlil I of Babylon, Tušratta of Mittani, Aššur-uballit of Assyria and Suppiluliuma of Hatti. The Bible doesn't even mention Mittani - probably because it was already long defeated by the Hittites and Assyria - Asshurbanipal. Can we firmly date Amarna with C14 dating? Or any of these other kings? What C14 dating do we have for the 2nd millennium BC? Further, it would seem a bit strange for the scribes to say the Hebrews built the storage city of Ramses if Ramses was the Shishak of Jeroboam's day.

2. Assuming Rohl is wrong about the revised chronology, are there other pharaohs which could be this Shishak ie who we do have some Egyptian evidence for successfully invading Judah and taking the temple treasures? He seems to be right that Shoshenk fails the test. Egyptian pharaoh's would certainly brag about defeating Judah. However, the Merneptah Stele doesn't say "Judah" it says "Israel."

[RevTestament]

For anyone following along, letters from the Babylonian king, Kadashman-Enlil I, seem to independently anchor the time frame of Pharaoh Akhenaten's reign to the mid-14th century BC. This further fixes the reign of the Hittite king Suppiluliuma who appears in the Armana record in a letter of congratulations to the accession he wrote to Pharaoh Akhenaten. (Ashton and Down. Unwrapping the Pharaohs, p.75).

So if our Babylonian chronology is correct, it seems we can safely reject Rohl's vast proposed revision of Egyptian chronology, and proposal of Rameses II as the biblical Shishak. However, I would still like to hear from anyone with ideas as to who the biblical Shishak could be besides Shoshenk. Do you think it is someone else or that Shoshenk changed gears and attacked Israel despite an alliance with Rehoboam, and that we just are missing the record of another campaign into Judah against Jeroboam?

[coolrok7]

You might try looking in the Patterns of Evidence video where it discusses this. I have both the book and the dvd.

Edited November 13, 2017 by coolrok7

[Web Of Slime]

Quote

Upon the shield was written in Egyptian hieroglyphics: "Judah-Melek-Land" which means "the kingdom of Judah."

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Web Of Slime said:

A quote without provenance is not terribly useful. I assume you are saying that the original wall of Shoshenk  should read like Champollion translated it? Rohl says this is now well-recognized as an incorrect translation, but I don't really read hieroglyphic...

However, there seems to be strong C14 dating evidence to support a more traditional timeline in Armana. So if Rohl moves up the 12th dynasty 300 years that creates a real unrealistic chronology, because C14 dating doesn't support moving up the 14th dynasty that much. Nevertheless, Rohl may be right about that translation - can you refute it any better?