This study reexamines the identity and activity of the Egyptian figure known biblically as Shishak by distinguishing between two historically separate Egyptian interventions in Canaan: a limited, politically targeted expedition in 961 BCE and a later, fully commemorated imperial campaign in 925 BCE. By clarifying Shishak’s changing role within Egypt’s power structure, this two-stage model reconciles the biblical record, the Septuagint tradition, and the Egyptian archaeological evidence without collapsing them into a single event.
This reassessment stands in deliberate continuity with the work of Kenneth A. Kitchen, whose reconstruction of the Third Intermediate Period provides the Egyptological foundation for the present study. Kitchen’s regnal framework, prosopography, and treatment of Egyptian military activity are accepted here in full. The point of divergence lies not in the evidence itself, but in the long-standing assumption—traceable to Champollion’s early interpretation of the Karnak reliefs—that the campaign commemorated by Shoshenq I must correspond directly and exclusively to the biblical account of Shishak. Once this inherited assumption is relaxed, Kitchen’s own data permit a more differentiated historical reconstruction in which two distinct Egyptian interventions can be identified.
Recent consensus in Egyptian regnal chronology places 961 BCE firmly within the reign of Psusennes II, the final ruler of the Twenty-First Dynasty, rather than within the reign of Siamun, as earlier reconstructions had proposed.¹ This correction requires a corresponding revision in the identification of the Egyptian agent involved in the biblical events traditionally associated with Shishak. By 961 BCE, the Egyptian throne was held by Psusennes II, while effective military authority resided with Shishak, a Libyan prince who served as commander-in-chief of Egypt’s armies and who would later ascend the throne as Pharaoh Shoshenq I, founder of the Twenty-Second Dynasty.²
This revised framework does not remove Egypt from the events described in the biblical account; rather, it clarifies the political mechanism by which Egyptian involvement would have occurred. In the late Twenty-First Dynasty, the Tanite kings exercised limited centralized authority, while military power was increasingly concentrated in the hands of Libyan commanders. Egyptian administrative and military practice during this period allows for limited foreign expeditions to be undertaken by senior commanders without the personal participation of the reigning pharaoh, particularly when such actions were regional, targeted, and political rather than imperial in scope.
Egyptological sources attest Shishak’s high military office during the reign of Psusennes II, making him the most plausible agent for any Egyptian action beyond Egypt’s borders in the early 960s BCE. Kenneth Kitchen documents a modest Egyptian engagement in the southern Levant under Siamun but records no corresponding royal campaign under Psusennes II.³ This silence, however, must be interpreted cautiously. The closing decades of the Twenty-First Dynasty are characterized by a scarcity of monumental inscriptions and royal reliefs documenting foreign activity.⁴ Moreover, an expedition conducted by a commander-in-chief rather than by a reigning pharaoh, and limited in scope, would not normally be expected to receive formal monumental commemoration.
Within this historical context, the Septuagint’s expanded narrative in 3 Kingdoms (1 Kings) 12:24e–z assumes particular significance.⁵ This Greek tradition records that Jeroboam fled to Egypt, where he was received by Shishak, who gave him his sister in marriage. Although absent from the Masoretic Text and widely regarded as a Greek expansion, this passage is early and pre-Christian, preserving a tradition that places Shishak in a position of authority in Egypt prior to his accession as pharaoh.⁶ Notably, the Septuagint does not identify Shishak as king at the time, a detail that aligns closely with his historically attested role as military commander under Psusennes II.
On this reconstruction, the Egyptian intervention traditionally labeled “Shishak’s invasion” is best understood as having occurred in 961 BCE, executed by Shishak in his capacity as commander of Egypt’s armies under the nominal reign of Psusennes II. The biblical narrative’s emphasis on Jerusalem and the Temple suggests a deliberate, narrowly focused operation rather than a sweeping conquest.⁷ The motive for this expedition was likely political and cultic rather than territorial. By removing ceremonial items from the Jerusalem Temple, Egypt—acting through Shishak—could weaken Jerusalem’s cultic authority while transferring symbolic legitimacy to his brother-in-law and ally Jeroboam’s nascent regime in the north.⁸
This interpretation also explains the asymmetry between the biblical account and the Egyptian archaeological record. The seizure and redistribution of cultic objects would advance Egyptian political interests without constituting the type of triumphal conquest typically celebrated in royal inscriptions, especially when carried out by a commander rather than a reigning pharaoh.
Several decades later, the historical situation changed markedly. Upon ascending the throne as Pharaoh Shoshenq I, Shishak possessed both the authority and ideological incentive to memorialize his military achievements. His well-documented campaign in 925 BCE, recorded on the Bubastite Portal at Karnak, represents a fundamentally different type of operation.¹⁰
The geographic focus of the Karnak reliefs is best explained by Egyptian strategic interests rather than by a desire to recount earlier Judean events. Control of the Negev secured access to vital copper resources in the Arabah, while maintaining the northern kingdom of Israel served Egypt’s interest in preserving a buffer state against Aramean expansion from Damascus. In this context, the kingdom of Israel under Baasha played a crucial geopolitical role.¹¹
Methodological Note on Interpretation
The reconstruction proposed here does not challenge Kenneth Kitchen’s chronology of the Third Intermediate Period nor his careful cataloguing of Egyptian campaigns and inscriptions. His research is foundational to the present study. Rather, it questions the interpretive compression of all Shishak-related evidence into a single event. The identification of the Karnak relief with the biblical account rests ultimately on Champollion’s early assumption that monumental commemoration and biblical narrative must describe the same episode.
The geographic focus of the Karnak reliefs is best explained by Egyptian strategic interests rather than by a desire to recount earlier Judean events. Control of the Negev secured access to vital copper resources in the Arabah, while maintaining the northern kingdom of Israel served Egypt’s interest in preserving a buffer state against Aramean expansion from Damascus. In this context, the kingdom of Israel under Baasha played a crucial geopolitical role.¹¹
Footnotes
1. K. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC), 3rd ed. (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1996); 4th ed. (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 2009); cf. E. Hornung, R. Krauss, and D. A. Warburton (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Leiden: Brill, 2006).
2. Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, §§219–224.
3. Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, §§272–273.
4. Ibid., §§219–224.
5. Septuagint, 3 Kingdoms (1 Kings) 12:24e–z.
6. E. Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1999); A. Schenker, “Jeroboam in the Septuagint,” Vetus Testamentum 47 (1997): 321–336.
7. 1 Kings 14:25–26; 2 Chronicles 12:9.
8. 1 Kings 12:26–33; cf. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 190–193.
9. Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, §224.
10. Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, §§273–299.
11. Septuagint, 3 Kingdoms 12:24e–z; cf. 1 Kings 15:16–22.