The Schism and the Divided Monarchy

The Early Years

When Solomon died, his son Rehoboam (c. 930–913 BCE.) succeeded him as king of Judah, apparently without incident (1 Kings 11:43). Rehoboam then traveled north to Shechem to lay his claim to the throne of Israel as well. The account of the ensuing negotiations preserved in 1 Kings 12 suggests that the leaders of the northern tribes were prepared to accept Rehoboam’s rule, as long as the new king mitigated the harsh labor policies of his father. Historians assume that part of their concern was the tax burden required to support Solomon’s building projects and to maintain his palace, as detailed in the description of revenue collection in the administrative districts he established (1 Kings 4:7–28), but the only grievances expressed in the account of the Shechem parley are “the hard service of your father and the heavy yoke that he placed on us” (1 Kings 12:4). According to 1 Kings 9:15–23, Solomon imposed corvée, or conscript labor, only on the foreign, non-Israelite population, while the Israelites involved in his work projects served as overseers and officers (1 Kings 12:22–23). Nevertheless, the language of the northern leaders’ complaint indicates that they felt enslaved by Solomon’s labor policies, and it is noteworthy that when the secession movement found a leader, he was a dissident officer in Solomon’s labor force and a fugitive from the king’s justice.

As a young man from Zeredah (a town west of Shiloh in the Ephraimite highlands), Jeroboam son of Nebat had come to Solomon’s attention because of his administrative skills and energy. Solomon placed him in charge of the corvée labor of the House of Joseph—that is, the conscript labor battalions of the territories of the half-tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (1 Kings 11:26–28). Despite this high-ranking appointment, Jeroboam proved not to be a loyal member of Solomon’s administration and, in circumstances not explained, he “lifted his hand against the king” (1 Kings 11:26), that is, he led some kind of insurrection. With Solomon’s police seeking his life, Jeroboam fled to Egypt and found refuge with Pharaoh Sheshonk I (c. 945–924 BCE), the biblical Shishak, in whose safekeeping he remained until Solomon’s death.

Shishak, a Libyan nobleman, was the founder of the XXIInd Egyptian Dynasty, superseding the weak XXIst Dynasty, which, under Pharaoh Siamun (978–959 BCE), seems to have made common cause with Israel and Judah against the Philistines. Shishak’s hospitality to Jeroboam, however, may be an indication that Egypt, invigorated and ambitious after the rise of the XXIInd Dynasty, no longer felt the need for a policy of accommodation with Jerusalem. On the contrary, Shishak may have viewed the burgeoning power of Solomon’s dual kingdom as a serious threat to Egyptian interests in Canaan.

After Solomon’s death, Jeroboam returned to Israel. According to the account in 1 Kings 12, he exercised a leadership role in the parley at Shechem. As already noted, Rehoboam might have been able to win over the northern tribal leaders if he had dealt with them respectfully and assured them of less oppressive treatment. Indeed, his senior advisors recommended this course of action (1 Kings 12:7). But Rehoboam followed the advice of more junior advisors, his contemporaries, and replied to the petition of Jeroboam and his companions with hostility and even vulgarity: “My little finger is thicker than my father’s loins” (1 Kings 12:10). Having been threatened by Rehoboam with policies even harsher than Solomon’s, the northern leaders took up the slogan of Sheba’s revolt—“What share do we have in David?” (compare 2 Samuel 20:1 with 1 Kings 12:16)—and withdrew from Shechem. When Rehoboam sent Adoram (or Adoniram; compare 1 Kings 4:6), his chief corvée officer, to raise a work levy, the Israelites stoned him to death (1 Kings 12:18), and the division of the kingdoms became an accomplished fact. Rehoboam was obliged to flee to Jerusalem for his own safety (1 Kings 12:18).

What role, if any, was played by Egypt in these events is difficult to say. A strong Israelite state, unified and including Judah, would be a threat to Egypt’s interest in freely accessing, if not controlling, the trade routes along the coastal highway—the Via Maris or, as the Egyptians called it, the Way of Horus—and through the corridor running from Jezreel to Beth-Shean. Jeroboam must have used the time he spent in Egypt to prepare for his role in the schism, and we may suspect that he did so with Shishak’s encouragement if not his active tutelage. After the Israelites embraced Jeroboam as their king (1 Kings 12:20), however, there is no reason to think that he ruled as an Egyptian puppet or even with active Egyptian support. The earlier pharaoh Siamun may have been content to forge alliances with Israelite kings, but Shishak’s ambition was greater.

Shishak’s Invasion

Not long after the separation of Israel and Judah, Shishak led a large Egyptian army across the Sinai Peninsula into Canaan. Our knowledge of this campaign comes from brief accounts in 1 Kings 14:25–26 and 2 Chronicles 12:1–12, where it is dated to the fifth year of Rehoboam’s reign (c. 926 BCE), and from the hieroglyphic text that accompanies Shishak’s triumphal relief on the so-called Bubastite Portal on the south wall of the first forecourt of the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak in Thebes (modern Luxor).

The biblical account gives the impression that the incursion was directed at Jerusalem (1 Kings 14:25) or at Jerusalem and the fortified cities of Judah (2 Chronicles 12:4), as if Shishak, who had given asylum to Jeroboam when he was a refugee, was now acting on his behalf in his ongoing conflict with Rehoboam of Judah (cf. 1 Kings 14:30; 2 Chronicles 12:15b). The list of conquered cities in the Karnak relief, however, shows that Shishak attacked cities throughout Canaan, north and south. In fact, many northern, or Israelite, cities appear on the list, but few Judahite cities. The Egyptian army marched through the heartland of the northern kingdom, subduing many of Jeroboam’s own cities as well as the adjoining regions. Though the sequence of cities attacked is unclear in the Karnak list, the itinerary included cities in the Plain of Sharon (Socoh, Yahma, Borim, Aruna), through the Jezreel corridor (Megiddo, Taanach, Shunem, Beth-Shean, Rehob) and east of the Jordan (Succoth, Penuel, Mahanaim, Adam). This shows that Shishak’s campaign was not aimed at Judah in particular but was intended instead to reassert Egypt’s ancient interests in Canaan and to reestablish some measure of influence, if not control, along the major trade routes. Both the organization of the campaign and the rhetoric of its memorialization at Karnak suggest that Shishak was nostalgically emulating the style of the great conqueror Ramesses II.

Even if Shishak cannot be said to have been acting on behalf of Jeroboam, however, it seems probable that his initial target was Jerusalem. The hieroglyphic text on the Bubastite Portal asserts that the campaign was undertaken in response to attacks by Asiatics, who were threatening Egyptian frontier settlements,  and it is possible that Shishak viewed Solomon’s construction of fortresses in the southern Negev as a provocation. After leaving Egypt and Sinai and entering Canaan, Shishak marched north through Gaza and began the assault at Gezer; from there he turned east into the southern Ephraimite hills and made his way towards Jerusalem along the usual northern approach, via Aijalon, Beth-horon, and Gibeon.  It was probably at this point, with the Egyptian army encamped in the hills north of Jerusalem, that Rehoboam paid Shishak the heavy tribute described in 1 Kings 14:26: “He took away the treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the king’s house; he took everything.” Shishak, evidently satisfied with this payment, turned north, sparing the principal cities of Judah and Jerusalem itself. Later in the campaign, when the Egyptian army came south again, Shishak gave his attention to the region south of Judah; the Karnak list contains an extensive roster of places conquered in the Negev.

Shishak’s invasion is especially important as a source of information for reconstructing the history of Israel. It provides our earliest clear connection between the history of Israel and the history of Egypt. The Egyptian materials in the Joseph story and the Exodus narrative, though rich and suggestive, are much more difficult to control as historical sources. In addition, Shishak’s invasion gives us a conspicuous point of reference in the archaeological record. The techniques of siege warfare, which the neo-Assyrian conquerors would perfect a century later, were already well enough developed for Shishak to be able to capture and destroy cities throughout the region.  Excavators have found evidence of violent conflagrations in strata corresponding to the late tenth century at a number of sites along the itinerary recorded in the Bubastite Portal reliefs. Shishak’s army has been posited as the agent of destruction at a large number of these sites, including some named in the extant portions of the itinerary and many others that are not.  The former group includes Arad, Gezer, Taanach and Megiddo, where a fragment of a stele erected by Shishak was found.

Two aspects of the archaeological record that emerge from an examination of the Shishak destruction are especially impressive and noteworthy.  One is the wide distribution and high quality of the tenth-century fortifications and other architecture, lending credence to the assumption that Solomon’s later reputation as a great builder, as reflected in the biblical account of his reign (1 Kings 6–7, 9:15–23), was well deserved. The other noteworthy aspect of the archaeological record is the rapidity and thoroughness with which the destroyed cities were rebuilt, sometimes to an even higher standard.  This suggests that Shishak’s incursion, as devastating as it was, had little lasting impact on the region.