Redating the exodus and conquest bimson
On the other hand, there are several scholars (Bimson, Hornung, Furlong, etc.) who do question the reliance of Egyptian chronology on such a crucial identification as that of Shoshenq with Shishaq.
Rohl argues that, on methodological grounds, the internal Egyptian chronology of the Third Intermediate Period should not be dependent on a biblical date to establish the foundation date of the Twenty-second Dynasty. Pierce Furlong challenges Kitchen's dismissal of the lack of historical correspondence between the campaigns of Shoshenq and Shishaq raised by both Rohl and Dr John Bimson: Kitchen dismisses the apparent discrepancy between the Shoshenq I campaign itinerary and the Old Testament (OT) account of Shishak’s activities as ‘frivolous and exaggerated’. he argues that since Shoshenq’s topographical list is incomplete, Jerusalem (and presumably every other important fortified town in Judah) may have been lost in a lacuna.
Wilson writes about Shoshenq's inscription, "Contrary to previous studies, which have interpreted the relief as a celebration of his Palestine campaign, neither the triumphal relief nor any of its elements can be utilized as a source for historical data about that campaign. the triumphal relief can unfortunately play no role in the reconstruction of Shoshenq’s campaign." However, Wilson's view is not supported by Kenneth Kitchen who states: "That the great topographical list of Shoshenq I at Karnak is a document of the greatest possible value for the history and nature of his campaign against Judah and Israel is now clearly established beyond all dispute, thanks to the labours expended on that list by a series of scholars.
However, the composition and interpretation of the list still require further examination and clarification".
Rohl has also argued that the qoph ending may be a later misreading of the early sign for waw which in the tenth century was identical to the seventh century sign for qoph.
Thus 7th century Sysq may have been a mistaken later reading of tenth-century Sysw.
This has come about simply because of the need to explore the ramifications of my TIP [Egyptian Third Intermediate Period] research.For example: Comparison by David Rohl of (first line) the name Sysw (the hypocorism of Ramesses II) as it would have been written using 13th to 10th century Proto-Hebrew signs, and (second line) the biblical name Shyshk as it would have been written using ninth to seventh-century Early Hebrew signs.The signs are taken from pottery inscriptions dating to those periods (namely the Lachish VI ostracon and the Izbet Sartah abcedary).Many scholars feel sympathetic to the critique of weaknesses in the existing chronological framework [...], but most archaeologists and ancient historians are not at present convinced that the radical redatings proposed stand up to close examination.