Pharaoh is never a word that means “King of Egypt” in The Bible.

 Most appearances of Pharoah in The Bible use “Pharoah King of Egypt” in a way that perfectly parallels other “King of” formulations like “Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar;” in Genesis 14:9.

The first Pharaoh in The Bible to be identified by a name that most scholars see as a truly specific individual name or epithet is “Shishak king of Egypt” in 1 Kings 11:40. But the grammatical structure is exactly the same as when referring to “Pharaoh king of Egypt” in verse 18 except that Shishak has replaced Pharaoh, not once in Scripture in Shishak ever called Pharaoh. 

I’m not pointing this out to argue anything as fringe as what some other people might argue, like denying that Biblical Mizraim ever refers to Kemet, or for any popular Revised Chronology theory. But it’s an observation I feel we need to stop ignoring. 

Pharoah is an Egyptian word with an Egyptian etymology and meaning, it means Great House, and it has a history that absolutely can explain how The Bible uses it. But The Bible also has its own reasons for not always being consistent with Egyptian usage or its own usage of the word.  So no, the point I made above doesn’t mean I don’t think Shishak was ever called Pharoah in the Egyptian records, he most likely was. 

I have come to agree with those who think some use of certain language in The Pentateuch is anachronistic, that its writing was not entirely made by Moses (only certain parts of what are now the 2nd half of Exodus). That is why Raamses/Rameses and Pithon appearing as place names don’t mean anything, they are identifying the general area of Avaris and On.  And so theoretically every “Pharoah” in Genesis and Exodus could predate when the Egyptians started using it as a title for the King.  It’s the Pharaoh who was contemporary with Solomon who I think is the earliest Biblical Pharaoh who needs to have been called that at the time. 

The other King of Egypt called something else and not Pharoah is “So King of Egypt” and I already argued on a different blog that I think So there is a reference to the city of Sais. 

Tirhakah the only ruler of the Kushite Dynasty mentioned in The Bible is called neither Pharaoh or King of Egypt but just King of Cush. This is something I'm sure is weaponized by the ‘Mizraim wasn't Kemet” theorists but I think as far as The Biblical Author was concerned Egypt was part of Cush at this time so just refer to Cush.  (One of my biggest pet peeves is people calling the Cushits Nubians, they are a distinct people.)

The first King of Egypt to be Biblically called both Pharaoh and some other name is Necho being called “Pharoah-necho King of Egypt”  in 2 Kings 23:29-35, but only Kings does this, 2 Chronicles 35:10-22 and 36:4 calls him only Necho and not Pharoah. Jeremiah uses Pharoah-necho as well as Pharoah-hophra, some think Jeremiah and/or his scribe Baruch helped write the last parts of Kings so him being consistent with Kings on this makes sense. 

In Egyptian records, addressing The King as Pharoah first became a thing in the Eighteenth Dynasty, a disputed example occurred during the reign of Tuthmosis III but it really seems to take off during the time of Akhenaten. But some examples that use Pharoah in the third person could be justified by how it was used going all the way back to the Twelfth Dynasty if it can be read abstractly enough. I'm thinking mainly of the songs from Exodus 15 here. 

Siamon of the 21st Dynasty was the first to have the word Pharaoh attached to his name like The Bible only does in the time of Jeremiah.  If Siamon is the Pharaoh who sacked Gezer in the time of Solomon as mainstream Academia currently believes, it’s a funny coincidence he isn’t referred to this way in The Bible but just as Pharoah. 

I’m not making this post to propose a theory for who either Shishak or the father in-law of Solomon was.  I’m still working on that.

Instead what I think is since both Pharoah and So are in a sense references to locations, and it’s not till Necho any Egyptian King of Egypt is called by an individual name. My theory is Shishak too may refer to a “where” associated with the King rather than a “who”.  In 1 Kings the name Shishak first appears not during the story he’s now most famous for but in reference to Jeroboam living as his guest, “fled into Egypt, unto Shishak king of Egypt”.

Tanis was the Capital of Egypt for the 21st Dynasty, and we already know what The Bible calls Tanis, Zoan. So the answer can’t be that simple if I’m going to argue for a 21st Dynasty ruler. 

Shishak is different from Pharaoh in that it does have a very plausible Semitic etymology.  In the Masoretic text it is in both spelling and pronunciation different in only its very last letter from Shisha, a name that appears in 1 Kings 4:3. It is derived from Shayish a word translated “marble” in 1 Chronicles 29:2, which is in turn from Shesh (Strong Number H8336) a word translated “Marble”, Linen”, “silk” and “blue” but that last one is odd since it’s not the standard Hebrew word for blue. (This Shesh is spelled and pronounced identically to H8337 which is translated Six, that seems like a coincidence though.) 

Another name derived from this root is Shashai from Ezra 10:40, but also there’s Sheshi one of the Anakim kings of Hebron in Numbers 13:22, Joshua 15:14 and Judges 1:10. But also of note is Sheshan from 1 Chronicles 2 starting in verse 31. And finally Shashak from 1 Chronicles 8:14-25. (The similarity to a cryptogram for Babylon in Jeremiah 25:26 and 51:41 is also interesting but possibly irrelevant.) 

In The Masoretic Hebrew text the difference between Shishak and Shashak is just a single Yot between the two Shins. And we know from comparing the DSS manuscripts to the Masoretic that sometimes extra Yots got added to words they weren’t originally in them to serve as vowels. 

There were grandiose Marble Palaces in Tanis, so maybe that’s what inspired the Shishak designation. 

The main point is, Shishak is a Hebrew name given to this King by the Israelites for some reason, I don’t expect to find it in Egyptian records. 

I’m considering making the case for translating the Shishak reference as “The Marble King of Egypt”.

Another thing about Biblical Shishak is that I don't necessarily think he actually fought any Battles in Canaan/Israel. 2 Chronicles 12 clarifies that there was no siege or pillage of Jerusalem, Rehoboam simply paid him a large tribute, 1 Kings 14:25-26 doesn’t contradict that it’s just less detailed. This is the reason I don’t think The Ark was taken at this time, not any of the usual arguments against a Shishak removal. 

So maybe he did siege or pillage cities elsewhere but not Jerusalem or any other city of Judah.