The Biblical king Shishak is Seti I & not Shoshenq I, Egpytian chronology is 364 years too early!

 

In my previous video titled “Redating the Ugarit eclipse to  April 29, 1011 BC requires lowering Egyptian chronology by 169 years” I showed that astronomers and historians wrongly dated the Ugarit solar eclipse described in the KTU 1.78 astronomical tablet on May 3, 1375 BC. Correct and precise interpretation of the tablet would show that the April 29, 1011 BC solar eclipse is the right one instead 

Ammurapi was the last king (circa 1215 BC to 1180 BC) of the ancient Syrian city of Ugarit who saw its destruction. He was a contemporary of Chancellor Bay of Egypt who rose to prominence and high office under Seti II, the fifth pharaoh of the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt. 

For quite an obvious reason, the KTU 1.78 astronomical text must have been written on or before the final year of the last king of Ugarit in 1180 BC and before the destruction of this city. However, the correct date of the Ugarit eclipse was April 29, 1011 BC, or 169 years later than 1180 BC. This means the regnal years of Ugarit kings were dated at least 169 years too early. And since Seti II was a contemporary of Ammurapi, it also means that the pharaohs of the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt and possibly before and onwards were dated at least 169 years too early as well. 

Not far from the reign of Seti II of the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt, was the reign of Shoshenq I, the founder of the Twenty-second Dynasty of Egypt, whose reign must have been at least 169 years too early. Now this error on Shoshenq I’s reign has a colossal effect on the dating of the Egyptian chronology, or parts of it.

This is because Shoshenq I is conventionally identified with the Egyptian king Shishak referred to in the Bible at 1 Kings 11: 40  & 14: 25 and 2 Chronicles 12: 2–9. According to these passages, Jeroboam fled from Solomon and stayed with Shishak until Solomon died. And that Shishak invaded Judah during the fifth year of the reign of its king Rehoboam, taking with him most of the treasures of the Temple and royal palace built by Solomon. 

Quite obviously from this Biblical account, Shishak considered the Northern Kingdom of Israel and its first king Jeroboam as his ally, while he considered the Kingdom of Judah and its king Rehoboam as his enemy. Because Shoshenq I is identified with the Biblical king Shishak, he has been ascribed a date relative to Rehoboam’s reign circa 931 to 913 BC, with Shoshenq I’s reign dated circa 943 to 922 BC.

In other words, the regnal years of pharaohs sometime before and sometime after and including Shoshenq I were dated based on the false assumption that Shoshenq I was the Biblical Shishak. I said “false assumption” because my analysis of the KTU 1.78 astronomical tablet has shown that the current dating of Shoshenq I’s reign is at least 169 years too early, proving beyond any doubt that he was not a contemporary of Solomon or Rehoboam. 

Shoshenq I left behind explicit records of a campaign into Canaan. The names of captured towns are located primarily in the territory of the northern Kingdom of Israel (including Megiddo), with a few listed in the Negeb, and perhaps Philistia. Some of these include a few of the towns that Rehoboam, king of Judah, had fortified according to Chronicles. However, the inscription makes no mention of Jerusalem itself. And this is a big problem, since Shishak according to 2 Chronicles 12: 2–9 specifically attacked Jerusalem and took away the treasures of the Temple and the royal palace.

Furthermore, why would Shishak attack the northern kingdom of Israel in Samaria, when its first king Jeroboam was his ally? So all this further casts doubt about identifying Shoshenq I with the Biblical Shishak. But if Shoshenq I was not the Biblical pharaoh Shishak, then who is? 

antiquities.org.il A 3,300 Year Old Coffin was Exposed Containing the Personal Belongings of a Wealthy Canaanite – Possibly an Official of the Egyptian Army (April 2014). The rare artifacts were uncovered during excavations by the Israel Antiquities Authority near Tel Shadud. Among the items discovered – a gold signet ring bearing the name of the Egyptian pharaoh Seti I.

Seti I was the second pharaoh of the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt. After the enormous social upheavals generated by Akhenaten's religious reform, Horemheb, Ramesses I and Seti I's main priority was to re-establish order in the kingdom and to reaffirm Egypt's sovereignty over Canaan and Syria, which had been compromised by the increasing external pressures from the Hittite state.

Seti I defeated Asian nomads in war against the Apirus (Hebrews). Dussaud commented on Albright's article and I quote: "The interest of Professor Albright's note is mainly due to the fact that he no longer objects to the identification of "Apiru'' with "Ibri" (that is, the Hebrews) provided that we grant him that the vocal change has been driven by a popular etymology that brought the term "eber", that is to say the man from beyond the river." end of quote.

However, a more exact interpretation of the term "Hebrew" generally renders its meaning as roughly "from the other side of the river”. Looking at a map of the Northern Kingdom of Israel in Samaria, one can see that its eastern border is clearly defined by the Jordan River. The “Hebrews” or “Apirus” as far as Seti I is concerned, refer to the western side of the Jordan River occupied by the Northern kingdom of Israel while in its eastern side are located the Kingdom of Aram-Damascus, the Kingdom of Ammon, and several nomadic Aramean tribes connected with Syria. These are the Asian nomads in war against the Apirus (Hebrews) which Seti I defeated in defense of the Apirus. 

And because Seti I was defending the Northern Kingdom of Israel located west of the Jordan River against its nomadic enemies located east of the Jordan River, Seti I is more suitable to be identified with the Biblical Shishak. This is because Seti I considered the Northern Kingdom of Israel as his ally, and the enemies of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (including the Kingdom of Judah) as his enemies.

From an examination of Seti I's extremely well-preserved mummy, Seti I appears to have been less than forty years old when he died unexpectedly. Ramesses II commonly known as Ramesses the Great, was the third ruler of the Nineteenth Dynasty, and successor of Set I. Ramesses II  is often regarded as the greatest, most celebrated, and most powerful pharaoh of the New Kingdom, which itself was the most powerful period of ancient Egypt. 

In the third year of his reign, Ramesses II started the most ambitious building project after the pyramids, which were built almost 1,500 years earlier. The population was put to work changing the face of Egypt. Ramesses built extensively from the Delta to Nubia, "covering the land with buildings in a way no monarch before him had." The great wealth needed to undertake such an ambitious building project very early in his reign, must have been taken in part from the treasures of Solomon’s Temple and royal palace which Seti I accumulated. 

Now how many years elapsed between the reigns of Seti I and Shoshenq I? Using current Egyptian chronology, the number of years between the start of Seti I’s reign and the end of Shoshenq I’s reign is 368 years, while the number of years between the end of Seti I’s reign and the start of Shoshenq I’s reign is 336 years. What this means is that if Seti I was indeed the Biblical Shishak like I am suggesting, and not Shoshenq I like Egyptologists are claiming, then current Egyptian chronology is between 336 years to 368 years too early!

Seti I in his first regnal year, led his armies along the "Horus Military road," the coastal road that led from the Egyptian city of Tjaru in the northeast corner of the Egyptian Nile Delta, to the northern coast of the Sinai peninsula, and ending in the town of "Canaan" in the modern Gaza strip. In contrast, Shoshenq I’s successful campaign in Israel and Judah, is conventionally dated to 925 BC, or just 3 years before his reign ended in 922 BC. Therefore, the actual number of years of error caused by choosing Shoshenq I and not Seti I as the Biblical Shishak is close to the difference between the start of Seti I’s reign and the end of Shoshenq I’s reign which is 368 years.

I personally believe the error is close to 364 years  because when a 364 years deduction is applied to the reign of the tenth ruler of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Akhenaten, we get a corrected period of 987 BC to 970 BC as his actual regnal years. And this makes Akhenaten a contemporary of King David circa 1010 BC to 970 BC, and King Solomon circa 970 BC to 931 BC. 

Now according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 8:165 to 173), the Queen of Sheba (a believer of the God of Israel) was the queen of Egypt and Ethiopia. I believe Nefertiti, the wife of the monotheist Pharaoh Akhenaten, and contemporary of King Solomon, was the legendary Queen of Sheba. 

Note also that Akhenaten’s reign ended in 970 BC just when Solomon’s reign started. This means Nefertiti was no longer Queen of Egypt when she met King Solomon, but was already known as the Queen of Sheba (believed to be Saba, Ethiopia) after presumably marrying the King of Ethiopia soon after Akhenaten died.