Last week, we told you that there were three pillars holding up the complete edifice of Egyptian chronology, and that one of those pillars was the identification of Shishak, with the twenty-second dynasty Egyptian King, Shoshenq I.

In fact, this pillar should have two substantial other supports that professional Egyptologists prefer to ignore or, at best, try to dismiss in a short paragraph with somewhat of an embarrassed air.

The reason is clear. Around this era of Biblical history, there are two other links clearly made between Israel and Egypt. The first is the account regarding Solomon marrying the daughter of an Egyptian King, and the second is the failed attack of Zerah, the Ethiopian, at the time of Asa.

I will concentrate this week on the story of Solomon's marriage to the daughter of an Egyptian King which, by definition, according to the established chronology, would have to be Siamun, a king of the {21st dynasty}. This is absolutely fixed. If Shishak is Shoshenq I, then the father-in-law of Solomon has to be Siamun, as all Egyptologists agree.

Let us look at the historical background as presented in the Book of Kings and the Book of Chronicles. Solomon becomes King in succession to King David, his father. A major thread running through the life of David is his conflict with the Philistines. Contrary to popular belief, he was never able to occupy Philistia.

"Pharaoh, king of Egypt, had gone up and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a portion unto his daughter, Solomon's wife" (First Kings 9:16).

Let us look at that account more carefully. If we look at a map of the area, the Egyptian King must have either been an ally of the Philistines, or had conquered them to get to Gezer, which is only 20 miles to the west and slightly north of Jerusalem. He must have been a very powerful king, indeed, to accomplish from a distance what David and Solomon together could not have done in their lifetimes. Yet, our impression of both David and Solomon is that they were very powerful men, controlling a very rich and powerful land. But they were not able to control a city practically on the outskirts of Jerusalem. It needed an Egyptian King to hand it over to Solomon's wife.

So who are the Egyptologists forced to accept as this Extremely powerful King? Not a Thuthmose, not even a Ramesses, but a very obscure king called Siamun. And what evidence is there that he made such an important foray outside of Egypt? Ken Kitchen, the acknowledged leading expert of this period of Egyptian History writes, in his seminal, "The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt ":

"Two pieces of evidence, taken together, suggest that Siamun launched his armies into South-West Palestine against his nearest neighbors, the Philistines, and reached as far as Gezer, a late-Canaanite enclave on the borders of Philistia and Israel" (in I Kings 9:16).

In other words, his first piece of evidence is the Biblical account. To prove how powerful Siamun is, he has to look to the Biblical evidence, a tautology (circular reasoning) if ever there was one. But he must have more? Well ... not exactly.

"At this point, it is apposite to cite (as others have done) a fragmentary relief of Siamun from a thoroughly destroyed building which had been erected by {Psusennes I and Siamun}, east of the Royal tombs and just south of the main temple of Amun in the great precinct of Tanis. {This relief} shows Siamun in the pose of smiting, with uplifted mace, a group of prisoners who grasp a double axe of a type reminiscent of the Aegean and West Anatolian world." (#235).

That's it ???? That's it!

Because they are constrained by having Shishak as Shoshenq I, they must have the mighty King who invaded Philistia, who came within twenty miles of Jerusalem, at a time when a King David and a King Solomon were at their most powerful and could do nothing in the same area, the mighty King ... Siamun ... who Siamun? And the evidence is from the Biblical story which does not mention the name Siamun and a relief showing him smiting someone holding an axe head from a different region.....puleeeese !!!!!!!

Is this a mighty pillar support, indeed????

Now we have a tremendous number of Egyptian records. All the powerful Kings left long and glowing accounts of their conquests. Only ONE, however, gave an account of his conquest of Gezer, and it is on one of the most famous inscriptions in the world.

And there is another shock for Egyptologists. For the King who wrote that inscription and who, we claim, was the father-in-law of Solomon, would confirm also our identification of Shishak of the Bible account.

Who is this King, actually known as "The Binder of Gezer", who inscribed his great success on that wonderful stela known as the "Israel Stela": "The Kings are overthrown, saying 'Salam!' Not one holds up his head among the Nine Bows. Wasted is Tehenu, Kheta is pacified, Plundered is Pakanan Carried off is Askalon, Seized upon is Gezer Yenoam is made as a thing not existing. Israel is desolate, his seed is not: Palestine has become a widow for Egypt. All lands are united, they are pacified:" (Breasted: Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. 3. p.264-265 )

The King is Merneptah, 4th King of the {Nineteenth Dynasty}, And the only Egyptian King known to have captured Gezer. He was the father-in-law of Solomon and our pillars are strong and secure.

If Merneptah was the father-in-law of Solomon, then Ramesses III must have been Shishak ... is that pillar secure? ... We will see in the following weeks. Stay tuned.

Any Questions??

In the next few weeks, we will not only identify Shishak, but discover where the massive treasury of Solomon was transferred by Rehoboam into his hands from the Egyptian records. That would, of course, have included at least one of the arks (yes, there were two -- please re-read Deuteronomy and visit our library), and its possible location can be determined from the same Egyptian records.

Perhaps we can all go and visit this site very soon.