(2013/5773)
On the southern wall of the impressive temple of Amon in Karnak, Egypt is an inscription about the military conquests of King Shishak, a Pharaoh of Libyan origin. He ruled between 935-914 BCE. The inscription describes a heavy military blow dealt to tens of cities both in the Southern and Northern Kingdoms of Israel, ruled at that point by Rechav’am ben Shlomo and Yarov’am ben Nevat, respectively.
Archeologists have been puzzled as to why Shishak would attack his friend Yarov’am. If Shishak sheltered Yarov’am during his years of exile (Melachim I 11:40), why did Shishak attack the cities of Yarov’am’s Northern Israelite Kingdom?! Moreover, why does the Tanach record only Shishak’s attack on the Southern Kingdom (Melachim I 14:26-28) and not Shishak’s attacks on the Northern Kingdom?
Rejection of Potential Solutions
Contradictions between Tanach and archaeological evidence can sometimes be resolved by questioning the validity of archaeological evidence. Ancient kings recorded their own version of their achievements and were hardly objective historians. They were loath to record their failings and sometimes exaggerated their victories. Thus, one could in theory argue that Shishak inflated his exploits in Eretz Yisrael and recorded that he invaded Northern Israel when in fact he did not. This, however, is not a viable approach, since part of a stele (monument) celebrating Shishak’s victory in Northern Israel was discovered in Megido (a strategically-located fortress in Israel’s Yizre’el Valley).
Another approach can be based on the fact that Tanach, simply put, is not a history book. Sefer Melachim, for example, many times refers to the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah or the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (these do NOT refer to Divrei HaYamim of Tanach which was written during the Second Beit HaMikdash era) for a full description of the lives of the various kings it discusses. Thus, one could argue that the Tanach does not record Shishak’s invasion of Northern Israel simply because it does not seek to present a full description of all the events that occurred during the reign of Yarov’am ben Nevat.
This approach is also unsound because our problem is not simply the Tanach’s omission of Shishak’s invasion of Northern Israel. Our fundamental problem is that Tanach presents Shishak as a friend of Yarov’am ben Nevat but the inscription on the Karnak temple presents Shishak as an enemy of Yarov’am ben Nevat.
The Solution of Professor Yehudah Elitzur
Professor Yehuda Elitzur, a highly-respected Orthodox Jewish Bible scholar, has an interesting theory to resolve this problem (Dr. Elitzur’s Hebrew language essay on this topic appears on the website of Israel’s Herzog College; we include part of Rav Alex Israel’s presentation of Dr. Elitzur’s approach in an English language essay that appears on the website of Yeshivat Har Etzion). He suggests that Shishak anticipated that Yarov’am would ally with him in his attack of Rechav’am’s Yehudah region after Yarov’am led the secession of the northern ten Shevatim from Rechav’am’s kingdom (see Melachim I Perek 12). The plan was orchestrated as a joint military campaign.
However, Rechav’am (on prophetic advice from Shemayah the Navi; see Melachim I Perek 12 and Divrei HaYamim II Perek 12) resisted avenging Yarov’am's rebellion and acquiesced to the split of his kingdom (see Melachim I 12:22-24). After Rechav’am's lack of hostility, Yarov’am could hardly muster popular support for an attack on Yehudah. He had no reason or motive to attack; he was ironically beholden to Rechav’am for his kingdom.
Moreover, Yarov’am understood very well that he dare not force his subjects to fight an unpopular war. Yarov’am knew that the northern tribes’ secession derived from Shlomo HaMelech’s overburdening the people with unpopular building projects. Thus, he could not afford to ignore public sentiment since that is the very force that swept him into office in the first place. Jeremy Doberman (TABC ’06) adds that new regimes, as opposed to well-established dynasties, must be particularly sensitive to public sentiment.
Hence, Professor Elitzur suggests that Yarov’am let Shishak down, abandoning their collective plan to decimate Yehudah. Yarov’am refused to go to war against Yehudah. As a response, Shishak unleashed his fury against Yehudah (and plundered the wealth accumulated by Shlomo HaMelech, as recorded both in Sefer Melachim and the inscription at Karnak), but failed to strike a knockout blow to the Southern Kingdom. He harmed them but did not destroy them. His real fury was channeled against Yarov’am's kingdom, who betrayed him by backtracking on previous plans.
This explains some of the politics. Still, though, it leaves us with a further question. Why does the Tanach not even mention the attack to Yarov’am's kingdom?
The depiction in Sefer Melachim is ahistorical, as if it deliberately omits the great military events and puts the entire emphasis upon the Beit HaMikdash. The most reasonable explanation to solve this problem is that the purpose of the transmission of the story is not to report historical events, however important they may be, but to teach religious lessons (Professor Avraham Grossman).
It would appear that the Tanach understands historical events within the context of its conception of reward and punishment. Shishak's attack on Yerushalayim is described because it punishes the people of Yehudah for its idolatry (see Melachim I 14:22-26).
A variation of this approach is that Tanach records Shishak’s attack on Yerushalayim not only to record the punishment for Yehudah’s idolatry but also to celebrate Rechav’am’s wise and righteous choices to heed the advice of Shemayah the Navi to avoid a civil war with Yarov’am ben Nevat and to yield to the power of Shishak. By doing so, Rechav’am avoided the premature destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. This contrasts sharply with later kings of Yehudah such as Yoshiyahu, Yehoyakim, and Tzidkiyahu who paid dearly and eventually lost the Beit HaMikdash due to their failure to obey the directives of Yirmiyahu HaNavi to avoid confrontation with a superpower (as recorded in Sefer Melachim and Sefer Yirmiyahu).
Moreover, it teaches that Shlomo HaMelech’s ill-advised alliance with Par’oh led to the near destruction of the Beit HaMikdash and to the loss of much of his accumulated wealth. Shishak, the founder of a new Egyptian dynasty (see Radak and Da’at Mikra to Melachim I 11:40), viewed Shlomo as an enemy, since Shlomo was a friend of his enemy, the previous Par’oh.
However, Shishak’s invasion of the Northern Kingdom damaged but did not destroy Yarov’am’s kingdom. Sefer Melachim does not record this invasion since Yarov’am ben Nevat was a Rasha of the highest order who deserved the most intense punishment possible. Sefer Melachim does record (15:29) the utter destruction of all of the males of Yarov’am’s family since it was a just consequence for his unsurpassed evil actions. Shishak’s damage to Northern Israel is not worthy of mention in Melachim because it did not serve as adequate punishment to Yarov’am, whereas Shishak’s damaging of Yehudah is recorded since it represented adequate penalty for their idolatry. TABC student Jared Mayer (’13) adds that this phenomenon is somewhat similar to the Halachic principle of Kam Lei BiDeRabah Mineih; meaning, if one performed two sins simultaneously, Beit Din administers only the harsher punishment. Similarly, Tanach, explains Jared, records only the harsher punishment meted out by Hashem to Yarov’am.
It is possible, though, that Sefer Melachim alludes to Yarov’am fighting Shishak. In its concluding statement about Yarov’am (14:18) it refers us to the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel that describes the events and the battles fought by Yarov’am. The parallel concluding statement about Rechav’am (ad loc. Pasuk 29) refers to a full recounting of Rechav’am’s life events in the Chronicles of the Kings of Yehudah but not to the battles he fought. The difference might emerge from the fact that Yarov’am fought Shishak whereas Rechav’am was passive and did not fight back.
An Alternative to Professor Elitzur’s Approach
I suggest an alternative to Professor Elitzur’s reconstruction of the relationship between Shishak and Yarov’am ben Nevat. One should hardly be shocked at a king attacking a former ally. Many have observed that “nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests.” Adolf Hitler’s (Yemach Shemo) alliance with Joseph Stalin (Yemach Shemo) to jointly invade Poland in 1939 and subsequent invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 is one well-known illustration of this behavior. Hitler allied with Stalin when he felt it was in his interest to do so and then attacked Stalin when he felt it was in his best interest to do so.
The same may have happened with Shishak and Yarov’am. I suggest that Shishak wished to plunder the wealth accumulated by Shlomo HaMelech that was stored in Yerushalayim. Shishak, however, feared attacking a united and thus mighty Israel. Shishak felt his only hope to take the gold was to weaken Israel by supporting Yarov’am ben Nevat who was determined to split Israel into two kingdoms. Thus, Shishak sheltered Yarov’am when the latter escaped from Shlomo HaMelech since Yarov’am’s revolt would facilitate Shishak achieving his goals in the south.
However, once Shishak had plundered the gold of the Southern Kingdom (Yehudah), his alliance with Yarov’am became irrelevant since Yarov’am was no longer useful to Shishak. Instead, Shishak set his sight on the Yizre’el Valley which runs through Yarov’am’s kingdom, since the international trade route between Egypt and Mesopotamia runs through this valley. One who controls the trade route has the ability to increase his wealth, and this seems to have been Shishak’s goal. Shishak was easily able to defeat Yarov’am’s kingdom and assume control of the international trade route since the once united and mighty Israelite nation was now split and weakened. Indeed, the inscription on the Karnak temple mentions many key Yizre’el Valley locations attacked by Shishak such as Megido and Beit She’an.
Conclusion
Understood properly, the archaeological record regarding Shishak hardly undermines the Tanach. Instead, it specifically augments our understanding of the events described and alluded to by Sefer Melachim and enriches our appreciation of the goals of Sefer Melachim when we learn of the events Hashem chose not to include in Sefer Melachim. This is yet another example of the principle that there cannot be a contradiction between secular sources and Torah. Either we do not properly understand or interpret the secular sources or the Torah. Perhaps we misinterpret or misunderstand both the Torah and the relevant secular sources. A sophisticated and thorough understanding of Torah and the pertinent secular material resolves any possible contradiction since the Torah constitutes absolute truth, the revealed wisdom of Hashem.