Albright and the biblical text: the case of Shishak


W. Albright was skeptical of the biblical text and not always a supporter of it. This is very important. He said in 1924: "The next light that falls on the Negeb is in the reign of Solomon. 1 Kings 9 15f. states that Solomon rebuilt Gezer, which Pharaoh of Egypt had captured, burned, and given to Solomon as his daughter's dowry. This statement has always been difficult. How was it possible that David could have left such a Canaanite enclave in Israelite territory undisturbed? David conquered the remaining Canaanite towns, like Jerusalem and Beth-shan, and extended Israelite sway over Ammon, Moab, and Edom, besides conquering Zobah and subjugating Damascus...Of late the difficulty has generally been solved by denying the truth of the reports of David's conquests and the extent of Solomon's kingdom. Some interpreters even deny that Israel was autonomous at this time, holding that it was tributary to Egypt or Tyre, or both in succession. Yet the improbability of such violent modifications of the biblical narrative should be evident, in view of the surprising objectivity with which the priestly compilers looked at their country's past history, because of their primarily religious rather than patriotic motive in writing it. Macalister's excavation at Gezer failed entirely to reveal any burned level from this stratum of the city, such as we should expect from the narrative in Kings.”

He explained its absence by supposing that the conflagration was only partial and local, though his excavations revealed no traces even of this character in the large area dug, which included most of the old city. “It seems to me that this negative result demands another explanation of the biblical narrative. Our suggestion is that we should read in 1 Kings 9 15, 16 not Gezer but ‘Gerar’. The corruption is exceedingly slight, and satisfactorily explained as due to the fact that the building of Gezer is actually mentioned in the next verse (9 17) along with that of Lower Beth-horon, etc. As our texts stands, the building of Gezer is mentioned twice, a repetition unparalleled elsewhere."

Albright do not contest that Solomon did not rebuilt Gezer, or rather fortify it. (Albright JPOS 24, 1924:143).

Albright considered Siamon (cir. 976-958) or Psusennes II (cir. 958-945) or a prince of the Tanite line, unknown to us by name. "So" or Sewe, the Egyptian Sby and Assyrian Sib'e, was only a Delta prince. He claimed to be a pharaoh. (page 145).

Albright felt that šošenk was called by Hebrews šušaq, corrupted to šišak and that he seized the throne and founded the Twenty-second Dynasty in Bubastis. "Yet while Solomon was alive he seems to have feared to intervene with armed force, because of the former's power and prestige."

"After the wise king's death, however, he attacked Rehoboam, in the latter's fifth year, cir. 927 B.C"

(Albright 1924: 127).

Albright felt that Shishak copied the lists of Sethos I and Rameses II. He thinks they are not genuine.

They are just hamlets listed.

He thinks that archaeology proves Shishak wrong and is "most cogent evidence against the correctness of these insertions" (page 146).

Albright also accused the scribes of trying to impress Shishak who did not accompany the conquest by increasing the numbers with fields, meadows and pastures = hql listed as well (page 146). The word should have been ṣadeh but Aramaeans introduced it to Egypt namely hql = field. 

Anyone working with Albright needs to be very careful. Although he comes over as someone who tries to defend the narrative of scripture he actually undermines it around every corner with his emendations to the literal text. When something does not fit his theory he dismisses it easily with a letter that is supposedly misread and could have meant something else. This fluctuating methodology in 1924 in this article is similar to the praxis of those times and even the Victorian period by a number of scholars all over the globe. This will not work. If you do not have a fixed text what is the purpose of discussing it?

Is the purpose to create an “Albrightean text”? Or an “Wellhausinian text”? If one is reacting against the cutting and trashing emendations of words and phrases by Wellhausen, it is just as bad to emend cut and trash letters of a word even if it is minimal. The method of emendation of letters, words, phrases or chapters should not be part of the methodology of any proper scholar.



W. Albright JPOS 4, 1924: 142-147 147


More on Albright’s methodology with the biblical text


The methodology of Albright is again under dispute here. He packed all data on the table around him, Egyptian history, Egyptian language, Egyptian culture, biblical data, archaeological reports of Macalister, Glueck, Abel, and other sources of the Levant languages, history and culture. What he did with the data is important. He tried to be very accurate and mathematical with the data of the Levant but what is lamented is his treatment of the biblical text. One notice that he ad hoc and without too little reservation had a somewhat “heavy hand” on the text of the Bible, to let archaeological data adjust or emend the text and he did so by rationalizing with consonantal changes. For him one cannot throw out the words or phrases of the Bible, but one can substitute the consonants.

The accuracy of the transmission of the consonants of the Masoretic Text is now clearly honored by the comparison of the tenth century Codex Aleppo with 4QDana. 99.9% in exactitude over a period of more than a millennium. If that accuracy is prevalent with the Book of Daniel by Jewish copyists through ten centuries, then one can assume that same accuracy was operative with the other books and not even after Daniel but books before Daniel starting with the earliest writings of Moses. This aspect nullifies the method of consonantal substitution by Albright. The consonants should not be ad hoc changed by any scholar no matter what.

In his 1924 article in JPOS and in his 1932 book on Pottery of Tell Beit Mirsim, one finds him often using the Septuagint to support his consonantal substitution of a place name. Gerar for Gezer for example. However, from a modern perspective on the stance of LXX research, one has to say that the editors of the prestigious Gottingen Edition of the LXX wrote in their preface that they do not live with the illusion that they have reconstructed or recreated the original Septuagint. It is not just a humble remark by the editor, it is an incriminating insufficiency that is not honored by Albright’s methodology. The LXX and any of its myriad of manuscripts and Uncials, are secondary attempts to the original Word of God in a Greek language but never on an equal par with the original Hebrew or Aramaic text. The Targums were paraphrasing attempts albeit in different tones of literalness. But, secondary as well for words were added that was not in the original. The methodology of use of textual comparison from Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Latin in all its forms, Greek in all its forms, Aramaic in all its forms, Ethiopic, are not well served when all these texts are eclectically “grabbed” when they fit a theory of the investigator and left aside when they do not. The Masoretic Text was supposed to have been placed on a higher premium by Albright than he did with his equal text method. This problem can be seen in nearly all his works and research. It fuels his rationalizations of advocating alternatives to the biblical text. It is now clear that textual transmission history suffered under Antiochus Epiphanes as the transmission history of the Iliad and other books of Homer and Hesiod illustrated which includes the Septuagint (see M. Frazer 1970 for Ptolemaic Alexandria). Book thefts and imperial library building projects as well as book-burning practices created caveats for proper texts to exist. Copying methods suffered during these catastrophic days. Qumran is evidence of this. All translations of the Masoretic consonantal text shows a myriad of variations in the secondary sources so that 4QDana and Codex Aleppo is a beacon of accuracy unchallenged. Albright’s methodology is unacceptable.

Albright criticized Wellhausen et al for using scissors to cut chapters, pericopes, phrases and words out of the text but he himself used regularly scissors to cut consonants from words to prove his point letting archaeological data be the deciding factor for such abuse of the text. If the transmission scribes did not want to touch the text between Qumran and Aleppo even in the consonants, neither should we in modern times. Albright is under review in this aspect as well.

Not everything Albright did is incorrect. Much of his data stands but his conclusions are under review. He explained very eloquently the role of the “regional pharaohs” in the days of Solomon. Princes from regions had control over large areas near themselves and the recognition of their peoples and outside countries allowed themselves to be called “Pharaoh”. This concept fits the biblical report very well. What he did not suggest, is that Shishak was also a prince that happened to be seen by Solomon and his court as a pharaoh. He only allocated Shishak to a time around 927 BCE. It is not only him but all scholars of that period. It is here that one can take from Albright the example of the other local rulers theory and apply it to Shishak to allow the text to be accurate in saying that in 951 BCE, Shishak came to Palestine and took all these cities and gave it to his daughter, wife of Solomon, as a gift. He did so after she married Solomon.

Albright had problems why this pharaoh could have done this. He followed a hermeneutics of suspicion regarding the matter that this early pharaoh circa 950 BCE, following Petrie, could have taken cities when Solomon was so powerful. Secondly, he doubted why David would have left pockets out of his own control in the country. What is the problem with Albright’s methodology in JPOS of 1924 on this matter? The history of the Books of Samuel indicate an “out of control court” after the conversion with the incident of Bathseba. It was years of tears and trepidation. His psalms indicate prayers for his enemies and relief from them. The daughter of Solomon asked her father to intervene on her husband’s behalf and that is what happened probably.

The biblical text do not put the chronology of Shishak only in 927 BCE but probably also in 951 BCE. The Bubastis cities text of Shishak and event on that gate dates to the events of 951 BCE as the careful Hebrew scribes indexed at the palace of Solomon.

The “unknown pharaoh” of Albright et al is Shishak as a regional prince who came on behalf of his daughter’s request to secure a peaceful region for his daughter. The gift handed over to Solomon displays his intention for the battles.

The biblical text makes a difference between the unknown pharaoh that came with the Bubastis gate city conquest [which happened to be Shishak’s conquest portrayed on Bubastis at Karnak] and Shishak’s entering Jerusalem to take treasures from the palace and temple in the fifth year of Rehoboam in 928/927 BCE. There was no burning in 928/927 BCE and it was not to cities that he came. Only Jerusalem. The biblical text is also a legitimate Ancient Near Eastern Source and should be respected as such given the accuracy record as displayed between 4QDana and Codex Aleppo of the same. Albright stands under review with his hermeneutics of suspicion on this matter as well.