1 Kings 14:25–28 and the Shishak Campaign — Jerusalem Does Not Appear in the Egyptian Record
5 min read 1021 words
The Egyptian record of Shoshenq I’s campaign in Canaan — inscribed on the Bubastite Portal at Karnak — lists the cities he conquered. Jerusalem is not among them. This is not an accident of erosion. It is a historical absence that the Biblical account cannot explain.
We read from the First Book of Kings, chapter 14:
1 Kings 14:25–28 — King James Version “And in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt came up to Jerusalem, and took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house, and took away all. He also took away all the shields of gold that Solomon had made. So King Rehoboam made shields of bronze instead of them, and he delivered them into the hand of the chief of the guard who kept the door of the king’s house. And it was so, when the king entered the house of the Lord, that the guard carried them, and they brought them back to the chamber of the guard.”
This campaign mentioned in verses 25–26 is not supported by historical evidence and does not exist as a historical fact. The Egyptian records — specifically those that recorded the campaign of Shoshenq I on the land of Canaan and listed the cities he raided — did not mention Jerusalem among them.
Israel Finkelstein states in his research “The Last Labayu: King Saul and the Expansion of the First North Israelite Territorial Entity,” page 174:
Israel Finkelstein — “The Last Labayu,” p. 174 “The three sites mentioned in the Shoshenq I list are located, therefore, in one restricted area of the highlands, to the north of Jerusalem. Important to point out that other parts of the highlands — Jerusalem, all of the Judean highlands, and (except for one possible place) northern Samaria — are missing from the list.”
The Encyclopaedia Britannica confirms:
Encyclopaedia Britannica — Entry on Sheshonk I “According to the Bible, ‘Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem’ (1 Kings 14:25–26) about 930 BCE in support of Jeroboam, the pretender who challenged the right of Solomon’s son Rehoboam to succeed to the Israelite throne. Sheshonk’s victories in Palestine were celebrated by reliefs and inscriptions at Karnak. Although the account reported the looting of the palace and temple, the name Jerusalem did not survive in the Egyptian record. A fragment bearing Sheshonk’s name was found at Megiddo.”
The Egyptian record itself — the Bubastite Portal at Karnak — is the contemporaneous, primary source. It lists the cities Shoshenq I conquered in Canaan. Jerusalem is absent.
The Christian Apologist Response — Two Attempted Explanations
The Biblical Archaeology website presents the responses offered by scholars who defend the Biblical account:
BiblicalArchaeology.org “Why was Jerusalem not mentioned on the Bubastite Portal, and why does the passage in Kings mention Jerusalem but not Sheshonq’s other campaigns in Judah? Some scholars believe that Jerusalem’s toponym was erased by time. Others believe that Rehoboam’s tribute to Sheshonq saved the city from destruction and therefore from the Bubastite Portal’s lists. Still others suggest that Sheshonq claimed conquest that he did not enact (Egyptian Pharaohs made false claims about their conquests frequently) and copied the list of conquered territories from an old Pharaoh’s conquest list.”
These two main arguments — that erosion removed Jerusalem’s name, and that tribute payments exempted Jerusalem from the list — are both addressed and demolished by Finkelstein.
Israel Finkelstein’s Refutation — Five Arguments Against Both Explanations
Finkelstein responds to both explanations on page 175 of the same research:
Israel Finkelstein — “The Last Labayu,” p. 175 “One may argue that the name Jerusalem had originally been included but was not preserved. This is possible but not likely, because rows II and V of the list, which mention places in the highlands to the north of Jerusalem, do not have many damaged toponyms. Moreover, no other Judahite town (in the highlands or in the Shephelah) appears on the list. Most scholars explain the absence of Judah by adapting the biblical story in 1 Kings 14 to the reality of the Shoshenq I list: Jerusalem was subdued but was saved from destruction by a heavy ransom — the temple treasures that were handed over to the pharaoh at Gibeon. This interpretation of the events is hardly acceptable. First, why would Shoshenq I receive the surrender tribute at Gibeon and not in the capital of Judah, located only 10 km to the south? Second, had Shoshenq subdued the capital of a great United Monarchy, even without conquering it, he would certainly have included it in his list. Indeed, new analyses of the archaeological data from Jerusalem have shown that the settlement of the 10th century BCE was no more than a small, poor highland village without monumental construction. Moreover, archaeological surveys have revealed that at that time the hill country of Judah to the south of Jerusalem was sparsely inhabited by a few relatively small settlements, with no larger, fortified towns. No less important, apparently the expansion of Judah to include the territories of the Shephelah and Beer-Sheba Valley did not take place before the 9th century BCE. This means that the first signs of statehood in Judah appeared only in the 9th century BCE, probably in its later stage. At the time of the Shoshenq I campaign, Judah was a marginal, bilateral chiefdom in the southern highlands and was ruled from a small village. All of these details render the biblical description of the events ‘in the fifth year of Rehoboam’ highly unlikely. First and foremost, the poor material culture of Judah in the 10th century leaves no room to imagine great wealth in the temple — certainly not wealth great enough to appease an Egyptian pharaoh. Indeed, at least some of the repeated references to the looting of the treasures of the temple in the Deuteronomistic History should probably be seen as a theological construct rather than as historical references.”
The five specific arguments summarized:
- There is no evidence of erosion in the rows of the Bubastite Portal inscription where the names of cities in the upper West Bank highlands are mentioned — those rows are largely intact.
- Not a single other Judahite city appears on the Shoshenq I list, making the systematic absence of the entire kingdom of Judah impossible to explain by erosion alone.
- Had Shoshenq I subdued Jerusalem — even without destroying it — he would certainly have included it in his list of conquests. A pharaoh who accepted ransom from a capital city and did not list it in his inscriptions would be unique in Egyptian royal practice.
- It is unreasonable that Shoshenq I accepted tribute from Rehoboam at Gibeon — 10 kilometers from Jerusalem — and then did not proceed to Jerusalem itself, which was the capital and the supposed source of the great wealth described in 1 Kings 14.
- Archaeological analysis of Jerusalem’s tenth-century BCE material culture shows it was a small, poor highland village — not a wealthy royal capital with gold shields in a magnificent temple. The wealth described in 1 Kings 14 has no archaeological basis.
The fifth argument is the most devastating: the Biblical narrative assumes Jerusalem in the tenth century BCE was a rich, developed royal capital whose temple contained enough gold to ransom it from an Egyptian pharaoh. Archaeology shows it was a small poor village. The wealth described in the Biblical account of the looting is a theological construct, not a historical record.
Conclusion — Egyptian Records, Archaeology, and Finkelstein All Agree The Biblical claim in 1 Kings 14:25–28 that Shishak I of Egypt attacked Jerusalem and looted its temple in the fifth year of Rehoboam is unsupported by any Egyptian record. The Bubastite Portal at Karnak — Shoshenq I’s own contemporaneous inscription listing his Canaanite conquests — does not contain Jerusalem’s name. The two Christian explanations for this absence — erosion and tribute-payment exemption — are both refuted by Finkelstein: the relevant rows of the inscription show no significant erosion, no other Judahite city appears anywhere on the list, the tribute explanation requires the pharaoh to accept ransom at Gibeon and ignore the capital 10 kilometers away, and a pharaoh who had subdued a great capital even without destroying it would have listed it. The archaeological evidence for tenth-century BCE Jerusalem further undermines the narrative: the city was a small poor village, not a wealthy capital whose temple could produce enough gold to impress an Egyptian pharaoh. Finkelstein’s conclusion is explicit: the repeated references to the looting of temple treasures in the Deuteronomistic History should be understood as theological construct, not historical record.