Haynes.tv

Egypt and Their Rivalry with the Hyksos and the Hebrews

Introduction

Throughout Egyptian history the Egyptians have been engaged in many rivalries both bona fide and mythology. The mythology appears in many ways to be an extension of real rivalry, and in many ways to mirror real rivalries. Scores of the incorporeal rivalry are very notable, as many of them were incorporated by the Romans, Greeks and others into their own religions; they were preserved, and some have been preserved to this day. Although even many myths were almost always changed when incorporated into the religions of others and usually maintain a different, while similar story; for the Greeks had a very similar pantheon as the Egyptians, consequently the gods had very similar attributes as well, but they supposedly lived on mount Olympics, had very different stories behind them, but nonetheless contained enough similarities that if they were both doing a term paper on there gods you might suspect plagiarism, is this just coincidental, is it copying or does it go much deeper we may never know. They also they intertwine many mythology rivalries with reality. For example the pharaoh (real) is considered a god himself (mythological) which helps to legitimizes his rule, for if one is a god than no man can bring accusations against you, or impeached you; so it in countless ways protects him. This works very well in theory, although I imagine that sometimes people would become wise to it and realize that the religion is being used to suppress any opposition. In the corporeal ambit the Egyptian are involved in rivalry with many of there neighbors including the Nubians, Mesopotamians, and Near Easterners. The main focus here will be a group of people known as the Hyksos, who somehow mange to gain power very subtly, and become extremely hated by the Egyptians as we shall see.

Preface to the Hyksos
Of the many Egyptians rivalries one of the most controversial and shrouded in mystery is the rivalry with the Hyksos. Many scholars can not seem to agree on who exactly they were, except to say that they were from the area of Palestine and Syria if that. This is probably due to the fact that most of the written records of the Hyksos were destroyed by the Egyptians out hate towards the Hyksos when they were finally liberated. The Hyksos seemed to have somehow peacefully gained power in Egypt; it is not exactly clear how they were able to do that. It previously was through that they gained power through violence, but it is now fairly well agreed upon that they peacefully came to power possibly through alliance with Nubia and or as Manetho’s theory suggest the Hyksos were probably able to capitalize on the declining stability and increasing political unsettledness of Egypt. However it happened, they then eventually are able to gain control over Lower Egypt and ruled probably mostly Lower Egypt from about the 18th to the 16th century B.C. Unfortunately all the written documents of the Egyptians concerning the Hyksos were destroyed, because they absolutely hating them afterwards whether it was because they had oppressed them or something it is hard to say. Although it does seem rather strange that there must had been more than them just ruling Lower Egypt to be hated so much as they were. Possible they were oppressive in their rule or the maybe they brought with them foreign customs that Egyptians disliked. Although, the most plausible explanation to me is that they exited very violently when Ahmose I drove them out.

Religious connections to expansion

Interesting the Hyksos are important for the introduction of the god Seth which starts an entirely rivalry over legitimization of the pharaoh and the myth of how Hrous over comes Seth. This could potentially be root in the overthrow of the Hyksos and their subsequent hate of the Hyksos, which also motivated the Egyptians to expansion into Nubian and towards Palestine. So essentially the Hyksos contributed much in motivating the Egyptians to expand and overcome the negative stigma left by the Hyksos occupation. Also after the Hyksos occupation we see more of the gods form Syria-Palestine area such as Baal in Egypt.

“…in spite of the prosperity that the stable political situation brought to the land, the native Egyptians continued to view the Hyksos as hated “Asiatics”. When they eventually were driven out of Egypt all traces of their occupation were erased.” ( Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)

“The historical sources for this period are scanty: scarabs, inscribed statues, king list, Manetho, autobiographical texts, and recent excavations at their capital at Tell el Daba in the eastern Delta” (Egypt and the Egyptians)

Hyksos link to Hebrews and their subsequent Exodus

To fully understand the impact the Hyksos rivalry had on Egyptians culture it is first important to understand who the Hyksos were. They were probably not all from one racial group and some of them may had even been Hebrews, although it is most likely not correct to say they were all Hebrews, at least some of them were almost certainly Hebrew. I will therefore first examine the connection between the Hyksos and Hebrews along with the impact of the Exodus followed by the impact of the Hyksos and the resultant drive of Egyptian expansion in the New Kingdom. We will see that the Hyksos weaken the Egyptian government enough to allow in people from Syria-Palestine like the ancestors of the Hebrew nation.

Evidence that they were from Syria-Palestine comes in that there is very little archeology in Egypt that can be associated with the Hyksos period, as it seems that it was mostly all destroyed. Therefore to better understand who they are I shall examine the Syria-Palestine area at a time that I believe to be right after the Hyksos expulsion.

“There are tow proposals for dating the period relative to Egyptian chronology: one, K. Kenyon, is that MB I coincides with the First Intermediate Period of Egypt; the other, by Albright, is that it is contemporaneous with the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt.

To clarify the issue between these two positions it is necessary, first to describe the essential characteristics of this culture. Kenyon was able to distinguish the MB I phase in her excavations at Jericho. At this site the preceding Early Bronze III city was violently destroyed, and in its place appeared a rater poor semi-nomadic phase with very crude brick huts as the only architecture. This lack of monumental architecture and planned urban life is characteristic of MB I throughout Palestine. Only in Megiddo is it possible to ascribe a monumental building, a temple, to this phase, even this is doubtful.

This dramatic break in urban life is accompanied by a clear break in ceramic traditions…A new repertory of pottery comes in, which has only a few elements in common with the previous Early Bronze period. The forms, decorations, and mode of manufacturing the ware, separate MB I from EB III beyond any doubt. These differences are likewise apparent in other artifacts, such as weapons, in which copper takes the place of flint. Cultural changes are noticeable in burial customs also. Cultural changes are noticeable in burial customs also. Instead of Multiple burials of the Early Bonze Age, there are single burials, or at the most two or three persons, in large shaft graves cut into rock…One can only conclude from all these innovations that MBI represents the settling in Palestine of a new people.. Kenyon’s interpretation, that we are dealing with an interlude of seminomadic peoples, is to be preferred.”(The Hyksos pg 10-11)

This description that John Van Seters gives here of the MB I culture sounds to be the Israelites conquest of Jericho. Although this data is slightly old it is still accurate except for of dating; apparently more recent radio carbon evidence dates the destruction of Jericho to around 1410 BC. As the Biblical narrative goes the Israelites marched around the wall of Jericho once each day, and blew their horns; then on the seventh day they marched around seven times, blew their horns, and the walls came falling down. This story actually has a great deal of archeology evidence behind it, but that is not the topic that I am addressing here. I am addressing how this coincides with the expulsion of the Hyksos. This coincides by one showing that there was a large movement of semi-nomadic, not long after the time Ahmose I was said to have expelled the Hyksos around 1570 or so and founded the new kingdom. Now for whatever reason it is possible that some of these Hyksos remained in Egypt and were enslaved for a number of years, after the expulsion of the rest of the Hyksos, since the word Hyksos is not best used as an ethnic word it can be used to include the Hebrews.

“The term zmw makes its first appearance in the late Sixth Dynasty, where it refers to a sedentary group of Asiatics, but the location of their settlements is difficult to determine. In the First Intermediate Period, zmw are described in the Instructions for Merikare as the seminomadic population of Palestine, and fits very well the archaeological picture of MB 1. In the Middle Kingdom the term is again consistently used to designate the ethnic population of Syria Palestine, and the zmw are also linked together with the hkz hzswt. Most important are the ethnic epithets, zm and zm.t, used to distinguish the Asiatic slaves from the Egyptian slaves in the late Middle Kingdom. In every case, foreign names of zmw are always of the West-Semitic type. The conclusion can hardly be avoided that zmw designate the Amurrite population of Syria-Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age.”(The Hyksos pg 189)

Based on these two descriptions of the MB I culture and the Bible I believe it is safe to assume that the people of the MB I period were the ancient Hebrew or rather the ancestors of the Hebrew nation. Also it seems fairly conclusive that there was a mass migration of these people as the Bible describes. In light of this evidence it is important to exam the conflict that facilitated their release and the and how the Hyksos could have allowed them safe haven in Egypt possibly during a time of famine in their own land, and how the subsequent overthrow of the Hyksos by the Egyptians may have contributed to the enslavement of the Hebrews or predecessors of the Hebrew, as one may have it; and the subsequent release from captivity.

How the Hebrews came to be in Egypt

Interestingly enough the date for the Hyksos during the 18th to 16th century B.C. coincides almost exactly with the time that Joseph of the Bible was supposed to have ruled Egypt,

“…the price of twenty shekels of silver paid for Joseph in Genesis 37:28 is the correct average price for a slave in about the 18th century B.C. Earlier than this, slaves were cheaper (average ten to fifteen shekels), and later they became steadily dearer. This is one more little detail true to its period in cultural history.” (Ancient Orient and Old Testament, by K.A. Kitchen)

Egyptians themselves usually employed for those unwelcome intruders the term ‘Aamu, which we translate with rough accuracy as ‘Asiatics’ and which had much earlier served to designate Palestinian captives or hirelings residing in Egypt as servants.

“Their race as a whole was called Hyksos, that is ‘king-shepherds’; for hyk in the sacred language means ‘king’ and sos in common speech is ‘sheperd’.”

“Josephus goes on to give from another manuscript a different derivation of the name Hyksos, according to which it signifies ‘captive-shepherds’. The Egyptian hyk being a word for ‘captive’. This etymology he prefers because he believed, as do many Egyptologists, that the Biblical story of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt and the subsequent Exodus had as its source the Hyksos occupation and later expulsion.” (www.touregypt.net)

This interpretation is however now through to be incorrect for it is now almost completely through that Hyksos simply meant foreign rulers, although they are clearly foreign ruler from the Syria-Palestine area. Many scholars will say this wrong interpretation of the word Hyksos is the reason why many believe that there is connection between the Hyksos rule and the Hebrews, but even though the word Hyksos simply applies to foreign rulers form Syria-Palestine area there is much more evidence to associate the Hyksos with the Hebrews aside form the misinterpretation of the Hyksos name. I hardly think Josephus would have taken the liberty he did to make the false words that of captive shepherds or shepherds kings if there was not more evidence to support that notion and lead him to that conclusion.

For example there is evidence that One thing which seems to be cal

“Although the Semitic name “Jacob” appears in the form Yaqob-her as possibly that of the third Hyksos ruler, it is probably best to exercise more caution than Gardiner did when, in Egypt of the Pharaohs, he wrote that “it is difficult to reject the accepted view that the patriarch Jacob is commemorated” in this name.”(Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Jacob was the name of the father of Joseph in the Bible thus it seems there may be a connection between the Biblical account and the actually names of the Hyksos rulers. In light of that it may not be that much of a stretch to say that the Biblical account ruling Egypt under pharaoh holds true and therefore it could fit in that Joseph was a vassal ruler. As indicated by John Van Seters there were vassal rulers of West-Semitic origin which perfectly supports the story of Joseph being elevated to a vassal ruler state. “A few rulers of the Hyksos period have indisputably West-Semitic names;I’kb-hr and ,nt-hr. They are considered by some, however, as merely vassal rulers.” (Hyksos pg. 181 footnoted So, Helck, Beziehungen, pp.102f)

Although it may not be correct to say that all of the Hyksos were actually the Hebrews it does make seem to be that at least some of the people referred to as Hyksos were probably and after the Exodus of the Hebrew, the Egyptians may have developed a hate of Hyksos since the at least some of the Hyksos were most likely Hebrews Hebrew sense to say that Joseph seem to make sense that. It seems that the Hyksos were so hated in fact after they left Egypt that every written account of them was destroyed.

“We cannot, however, speak fully of those days; for in after years the Egyptians destroyed every record they could find of the hated Hyksos. Hence the Biblical account stands as the only narrative of the time. It shows us just such a condition of affairs as we would expect. The native Egyptian soothsayers are little trusted by the foreign king. When they and the priests seek to explain his dreams of the seven cows and seven ears of corn, Pharaoh turns from their interpretations contemptuously and seeks instead the divinations of the young Asiatic slave of whom he has heard, and whom he releases from captivity to become his chief councillor.” (The story of the Greatest Nations and the World’s Famous Events, Vol. 1 Edward S. Ellis and Charles F. Home, PhD.)

That hate that would explain why any one associated with them might have been enslaved like the ancestors of the Hebrew nation were. In addition, if they were enslaved it seems to prefer a single Exodus and thus kills the theory that the Hebrews migrated out of Egypt over an extended time. The Egyptians would likely not allow a people group associated with the hated Hyksos to migrate out peacefully something drastic must have happened to of allowed them out; one only need look at American history to see how difficult it is to end slavery. Why would Egypt be so much more willing to let their slaves free? I think the answer to that comes in that they did not just let them free, but something happened to make them want to free Hebrews as we shall see.

Hebrew Exodus

The Israelites were another rivalry of the Egyptians. They probably migrated during the Hyksos rule and more than likely were enslaved following the expulsion of the Hyksos. They were probably likely disliked by the Egyptians since if they were favored by the Hyksos since the Hyksos were extremely hated if the Israelites where associated with them they would naturally be hated. There is a notable incorporeal rivalry between the Egyptian gods and the Hebrew God YHWH. It this rivalry YHWH demonstrates supremacy over the many Egyptian gods through the 10 plagues. This rivalry was even eye witness by an Egyptian named Ipuwer. He writes about the plagues as through they are real, people have even tried to explain this away by saying that some sort of algae in the water was able to turn in red, kind of like a red tide. “As it turns out, these particular bioluminescent algae also have a reddish pigmentation, hence the term “red tides,” and produce toxic compounds that make red tide events in that region so dangerous. Of the thousands, perhaps millions, of species of marine algae in the world, only a small handful are known to be sufficiently toxic to cause concern. Most algae exist harmlessly, using sunlight to produce complex carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and water…In addition, most of the algae that manufacture toxic compounds do not emit bioluminescent signals like those on the U.S. west coast, and thus are not so easily identified”.

Unfortunately there is no algae that can be found to make the Nile turn red like blood and even if there were it would still be drink, consequently this phenomenon can not simply be explained away. At the present there is in fact no good evidence to explain in away, consequently we have positive evidence for the Exodus actually being a real event in this eye witness account given by Ipuwer, and any argument against it at this point would be entirely based on the negative evidence or lack of evidence, to fully explain the event scientifically and chronology, although it is not best to argue upon this negative evidence when there is so much positive evidence. It is best to use the innocent until proven guilty approach in dealing with this, hence the Exodus of the Hebrews should be acknowledged as a real historic event until the evidence can say otherwise.

“The Leiden Museum in Holland houses a papyrus written by an ancient Egyptian named Ipuwer.1 It ‘appears to be an eye-witness account of the effects of the Exodus plagues from the perspective of an average Egyptian’. Excerpts are: ‘Plague stalks through the land and blood is everywhere … the river is blood. Does a man drink from it? As a human he rejects it. He thirsts for water …. Nay, but gates, columns and walls are consumed with fire …. Nay but men are few. He that lays his brother in the ground is everywhere …. Nay but the son of the high-born man is no longer to be recognized …. The stranger people from outside are come into Egypt …. Nay, but corn has perished everywhere. People are stripped of clothing, perfume and oil. Everyone says “there is no more”. The storehouse is bare …. It has come to this. The king has been taken away by poor men.’3” (www.answersingenesis.org)

1. (Catalogued as ‘Leiden 344’, it was discovered in 1828, and translated in 1909 by Prof. Alan H. Gardner under the title The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a Hieratic Papyrus. See , 24 May 2004.

2. Becher, M., The Ten Plagues—Live from Egypt, , 21 April 2004.

3.Down, D., Searching for Moses, TJ 15(1):53–57, 2001, who quotes from Erman, A., The Ancient Egyptians: A Sourcebook of Their Writings, Harper and Row, New York, pp. 94–101, 1966. )

To provide proof that even the exodus of the Hebrews may actually be an historic event one only need only look at the papyrus of Ipuwer. It seems that the papyrus is dated to the 19th Dynasty, although many believe the papyrus to actually be a rewrite of an earlier document by scribes and John Van Seters believes it to be of the second Intermediate period although I believe it could even be New Kingdom, presently the evidence is very inclusive on the exact date for the papyrus. I personally find it hard to believe that they would rewrite something associated with the beginning of the Hyksos take over way later in 19 Dynasty especially when we consider that all writing associated with the Hyksos were destroyed it really does not seem to fit either of the earlier date, consequently I believe it to have been written not long before the rewrite maybe only a Dynasty or two. “The new information has called for reevaluation of some Egyptian texts that have been known for many years. In this category is the Admonitions of Ipuwer, long associated with the First Intermediate period. The present study will endeavor to show that the work belongs, instead, to the Second Intermediate Period; when taken together with other evidence from about the same period, the Admonitions has much to say about the Hyksos problem.”(The Hyksos pg. 5) Interestingly enough the 19th dynasty is the dynasty of Ramesses II which may be have to with why the exodus is traditional ascribed to Ramesses II although I believe the exodus to actually have occurred around the time of Thutmose III or so since that is where the dating of Jericho is seems to put it when subtracting the 40 year wandering period.

I believe my conclusions to be well supported by other in the field of anthropology, one such person who seems to be arrived at the same conclusion is Richley H. Crapo a Ph.D. from Utah State University and the author of the textbook Anthropology of Religion: The Unity and Diversity of Religions.

Alternatively, some authorities have pointed to the fact that Exodus 2:10 says that Pharaoh’s daughter “made him her son,” as a possible reference to another source for his name. During the eighteenth Dynasy of Egypt, the suffix -mose was a common element in names and meant “son of.” This Egyptian naming convention is illustrated in names from the period such as Thut-mose (“son of Toth”) and Ra-moses (“son of Ra”). According to this view, the name Moshe would simply be a transliteration into Hebrew of a longer Egyptian name that ended in -mose.

Just as the origin of the name Moshe is no longer known, neither is the identity of the Egyptian princess who is said to have taken him from the water to rear as her own son nor that of the Pharaoh who ruled at the time is known with any certainty. Josephus, if he is to be trusted, claimed the name of the princess to have been Thermusis (Josephus, Antiquities, IX, 6), a name related to Thotmes or Tahutmes, that is to Thutmose (Marston, p. 162). Some have, therefore, suggested that this Thermusis was possibly the daughter of Thutmose II, a Pharaoh who, at his death, had no surviving sons by his principal wife: Neferure, the daughter of Hatshepsut. There is an interesting coincidence between Thutmose I and the traditional biblical chronology that should be considered here. According to the tradition preserved in 1 Kings 6:1, the Exodus from Egypt that Moshe is said to have led occurred 480 years before Solomon began building the temple in Jerusalem, an even thought to have occurred about 967 BCE. This would place Moshe’s confrontation with the Pharaoh at about 1447 BCE during the reign of Thutmose III (or of Amenhotep II according to other authorities). Since Exodus 7:7 claims that Moshe was 80 years old at the time of his confrontation with the Pharaoh, Moshe’s birth would have been approximately 1527 BCE, during the reign of Thutmose I (1540-1504 BCE). Since Thutmose I had no sons of his own, the story of Moshe having been reared by Pharaoh’s daughter as heir to the throne fits this scenario nicely. At the death of Thutmose I, Hatshepsut became Queen and married her step-brother, Thutmose II, who became thereby the new Pharaoh, Moshe having refused the throne, as described in the Christian scriptures: “Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter” (Hebrews 11:24). The parallels between the biblical account of Moshe and the Pharaohs continues through the life of Thutmose III, a son of Thutmose II by a different wife than Hatschepsut. Thutmose III is said to have conquered the Ethiopians. Josephus wrote of this conquest and credited the actual military role to Moses: “According to Josephus, it was Moshe who commanded the army of Egypt under which the Ethiopians were defeated: “A state of war broke out between the Egyptians and the Ethiopians. At this time Moses had grown to be a man. The two sides fought a great battle in which the Ethiopians were triumphant, and they pushed to conquer all of Egypt. The Egyptians looking for help inquired of their priests. The priests revealed to them that they should make Moses their general. . . Moses then became the commander of a great army. . . In a surprise attack against the Ethiopians, Moses led his troops to victory. . . The Pharaoh, from whom Moses had feled, died, and a new Pharaoh had become ruler. Moses traveled to his palace and told him of the victories he gained for Egypt in the war against Ethiopia.” According to Josephus, it was at this time that Moshe married his first wife: “Tharbis, was the daughter of the king of the Ethiopians: she happened to see Moses as he led the army near the walls, and fought with great courage; . . . she fell deeply in love with him; and upon the prevalency of that passion, she sent to him the most faithful of all her servants to discourse with him about their marriage. He thereupon accepted the offer, on condition she would procure the delivering up of the city, . . . and when Moses had cut off the Ethiopians, he gave thanks to God, and consummated his marriage” (Josephus, Antiquities, XI, 2, p. 68) (An Anthropologist Looks at the Judeo Christian Scripture Richley H. Crapo, Utah State University http://cc.usu.edu/~fath6/moses.htm)

Conclusions

I have found the Hyksos to be an important part of Egyptian history, they contributed greatly to Egyptian culture and were incredible able to capitalize on the weakening Egyptian power and may have even let the way for further weaken of the Egyptian state and possible even the succumbing to Nubian, Ptolemaic, and Roman powers. For in the Hyksos period we see a substantial change in religion with the bringing of the Seth deity into religion we see rivalry amongst what legitimizes an Egyptian ruler, interesting enough we see the all the Hyksos kings use Seth to legitimize themselves as opposed to the conventional Hrous deity. So we see the beginning of rivalry here. Although much more significantly the Hyksos allowed the ancestors of the Israelite nation in as possibly vassal rulers, such as in the case of Joseph which later leads to their likely enslavement at the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt. Then incredible the Exodus seems to have been more than likely a mass migration as indicated by the archaeology evidence of the MB I culture, and the accounts of Ipuwor’s papyrus. These provide strong evidence that the Exodus was actually a historical event, consequently constitutes an actually Egyptian rivalry.