Peter Fletcher

Prior to the Hyksos conquering Lower Egypt and ruling the populus from their city of Avaris they migrated, apparently as a result of famine, from the Levant into the Nile Delta. Here, initially, they were reasonably accepted by the people they would later control.

At about the same time the Hebrew were also driven south through hunger from roughly the same area at about the same time and also appeared to be tolerated by the Egyptians, until their subsequent slavery.

Further, both migrating peoples appear to have arrived in the Levant at approximately the same time in history.

Although these two peoples appear to be of quite different character, is there any evidence that there could be genetically linked?

The Hebrew are clearly of Semitic origin but arguments have been set out that the Hyksos were, in the main, Semitic people led by Elite Dominante Indo-Europeans.

By what name are the Hyksos called in the Bible before they became "Egyptian" rulers?

Does anyone have any knowledge that these people could have been related?

Peter Fletcher

Amaleq13

You might be interested in this older thread which contains some Hyksos information.

We've got several members who are pretty familiar with your topic but I haven't seen them posting for a while. Be patient and they may creep out of the bushes in response to your bait.

Asha'man

I don't know much about the Hyksos, but I have read a bit about the Hebrews in Egypt.

Current archeological evidence points to the idea that the Hebrews were never in Egypt, never slaves, and that the Exodus never happened. The archeological evidence points strongly to the conclusion that the Hebrews were simply natives of Caanan from the beginning, and the Yahweh-only cult simply displaced the worship of other deities.

Also, the dating seems to be off. The Biblical chronology places the Hebrews leaving Egypt in the 13th century BCE. The Hyksos seem to have predated that by several hundred years.

It’s quite possible that a badly remembered Hyksos expulsion from Egypt eventually became the basis for the Moses/Exodus myth, but I wouldn’t treat the Exodus as anything more than a myth.

Celsus

What I wrote there is fairly standard consensus. An interesting point raised by T.L. Thompson, however, muddies the waters. We get the term "Hyksos" from Manetho and Josephus--Egyptian records (by successors and enemies of the Hyksos) themselves refer to them as Amu, usually thought to mean "Asiatics". Thompson points out that this has often been used (since the Old Kingdom) to refer to shepherds from the Nile Delta. Similarly Thebes refers to all southerners as Nubians, though we should conclude uncertainty of any ethnic connection. Therefore, Thompson states that "Egyptian" refers to those in the lower Nile, "Nubian" the upper Nile, and Amu in the Delta. He thus sees the expulsion of the Hyksos as Theban propaganda on the reassertion of control over the Delta. He writes off the material connection with southern Palestine as due to the high volume of trade and commerce. This part of his case is correct, though it merely raises uncertainty, not ruling out the possibility.

As for southern Palestine, he notes the absence of any plausible bases of operations for a Hyksos invasion into Egypt (thus pointing to indigenous origins of the Hyksos). Fortifications found in Syria, Palestine and the Delta are not "Hyksos" to Thompson. They instead represent evidence for a lack of central control in Palestine.

Thompson is of course, a minority view. It seems as though he wants to have his cake and eat it: On the one hand, there are fortifications, on the other, they indicate a lack of central control. It's not clear that the Sea People's invasions required any sort of centralised control in launching a broadly successful invasion of Northern Egypt and Southern Palestine, so one wonders why he is so insistent on this occuring with respect to the Hyksos. As it is, the consensus remains fairly strong.
Hey! I still check BC&H regularly, I just find little worth posting about.

Joel

P.S. Peter, my full series can be found here, if you find it useful. I will try to come out with #4 soon, but have been putting it off for lack of references on hand.

Vorkosigan

Fortifications indicate an expanding but still contested frontier, or an area without centralized control, Celsus. Think of the US west, or things like Hadrian's wall, or the expansion of castles in England. As centralized control improves, the need for forts disappears. Hence, I think Thompson's point is valid, as far as it goes.

This reads like minimalist claims about the history of Israel! When you've got a hammer, everything is a nail...

Vorkosigan

Celsus

Yes, I agree with that point. But the presence of militarised towns indicates that invasion is possible. However, Thompson's disagreement is that it requires a much higher level of centralisation, which I disagree with. I wonder what other sorts of invasions we can think of that didn't have centralised control: the Crusades run on federalist organisation; I'm not sure about the Mongol empire, but it may also be an example; etc.
Though one should be careful about what one knocks with it--the walls may come tumbling down.

Joel

Amaleq13

Hence the "bait".

Casper

Excellent synopsis, Celsus!

capnkirk

Peter,

It seems from reading your posts that you are searching for signs of Indo-European superiority in the region at the time. I would like to disabuse you of that thought right now. That said, let us proceed to addressing the Hyksos vs. the Hebrews:

Haven't the similarities between the historical Hyksos and the literary Hebrew account of first Joseph and then the Exodus struck you as being too similar to be coincidental? Is there not a very good chance that the expulsion of the Hyksos to Canaan at the root of the Exodus story? The main thing that had to be changed to make it politically correct is that the Hebrews (who well may have been part of the Hyksos migration to Egypt) needed to be seen as (with the help of their YHWH) victors, defying the mighty Egyptians and leaving, rather than a militarily defeated and expelled alien entity, liberated slaves rather than interloping rulers.

The Hyksos were Canaanites, and they were expelled back to Canaan. As indigenous people, they were there before Abraham, many of them remained in Canaan, and probably were distinguishable from the Hebrews only by the god(s) they worshipped. The most intuitive guess as to their identity in the Hebrew bible is that they were among the ubiquitous Ba'al worshippers that the Hebrews were always in fear of losing converts to.

Remember that the Hebrew bible as it existed in 100 CE was the version of the story as written and edited by ONE of the many tribes of Hebrews (that of Judah). As such, one must expect that it was written and edited from a very Judah-centric POV. Within such a document, written to weld the Hebrews to YHWH (first and foremost), the Hyksos and their Egyptian heritage was grossly politically incorrect, and was edited out of the narrative.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

Peter Fletcher

This is good. My eyes are being opened.

I never considered that the Hebrew could have been a part of the reasonably well documented story of the Hyksos and had blindly believed there was some solid truth to the Exodus Bible version. Whilst it is obviously not proven, linking these two accounts together is worthy of further investigation. Any more guidance?

As I stated in my Thread Opening there is so much in common between the Hyksos history (set out by Egyptians with one spin) and the Bible Exodus narrative (clearly set down from a narrow biblical perspective with quite a different spin).

Then where did these Hyksos / Hebrew come form in the first place. Capnkirk clearly states they were indigenous Canaanites but, with respect, I'm not so sure.

Is this sacrelidge?

Peter Fletcher