Who were the 'Hyksos'?
This chapter will prove the Bible, leading ancient historians and leading actual historians right that Canaanite selfcalled Hyksos from Assur invaded and occupied Egypt and enslaved Israel. They ruled over Egypt from the North through the 15th Dynasty and expelled the Hebrew Shepherd Kings to the South where these went on ruling through the 16th and 17th Dynasty.
Different anti- and probiblical speculative theories without solid evidence about the time of Israel in Egypt are dominating Biblical Archeology. And different speculative theories regarding the chronology of the so-called „Dark“ Second Intermediate Period are dominating Egyptology. The following Chronology is not based on any new theory but on the extraordinary amount of over 100 matchings of the unfalsified Bible with scientifically recognized contemporary archeological evidence: The real Chronology of the 13th Dynasty and the real Chronology of the Canaanite self-called 'Hyksos' according to the rediscovered first and only unfalsified Strict Bible Chronology (Leading Egyptologists' highly speculative time estimations are written in brackets):
1750 BC: The first war between the 13th Dynasty and the Canaanites from Assur (Jubilees46:6) was in the beginning in Assur won but finally in Egypt lost by the Canaanites who nevertheless then stayed in the Nile Delta and founded the 14th Dynasty.
1729 BC ('1649’ BC):
Canaanite 'Hyksos' Invasion into Egypt and Enslavement of Israel in Avaris/ Ra-Amezes, Lahun in Fayum/ Pythom, Heliopolis/ On and the complete Nile Delta. The war is archeologically evidenced by Semitic contemporary war mass graves in Avaris.
1666-1658 BC:
Co-Rulership of Canaanite Northern Pharaoh Khayan and his Hebrew son in law and Southern Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV over reunited Egypt. Khayan‘s daughter Meris, the biblical „Pharaoh‘s daughter“ finds and adopts MOSES and marries Pharao Khanefere Sobekhotep IV (see Artapanus in Chapter Moses).
1606 BC ('1531’ BC)
The Exodus of Israel out of Egypt and the following Expulsion of the Canaanite 'Hyksos' out of Egypt is archeologically evidenced by the sudden complete abandonment of the Semitic Megacity Avaris/Ra-amezees, the contemporary largest City of the world (Bietak), and Lahun in Fayum/Phytom, a Semitic Slaveworkers‘ town (Petrie). Both towns were enwalled like also Leontopolis, a district of Heliopolis/On.
The Canaanite 'Hyksos' Dynasty over tributary Southern Egypt/ complete Egypt is the 15th Dynasty:
- Samuqenu/ Salitis 1729-1710 BC
- AperAnati/ BinAnu 1710-1697 BC
- Sakir-Har/ Apakhnas 1697-1686 BC
- / Khayan 1686-1658 BC
- Ippi/ Apophis 1658-1617 BC
- Khamudi/ Archeles 1617-1606 BC
- Parallel Canaanite 14th Dynasty in the Nile Delta 1750-1666 BC
- Parallel tributary(?) Hebrew 16th & 17th Dynasty 1726-1606 BC
AVARIS - BIBLICAL RA-AMEZES
THE ANCIENT SEMITIC TOWN OF
THE HEBREW HEKHAKHASUT AND THE CANAANITE HYKSOS
Picture: Avaris Excavation Layers Map
Picture: Avaris Site Stratigraphy System
The Excavator of Avaris and Leading Egyptologist Manfred Bietak was able to prove that the so-called Late Hyksos of the 15th Dynasty were Canaanites. But he was not able to prove his claim that the so-called Early Hyksos of the 12th/ 13th Dynasty were „for convenience sake“ also Canaanites. On contrary he is delivering unintentionally the hardest archeological evidence proving the Strict Bible Chronology for the time of Israel in Egypt:
1. The archeological evidence in Avaris matching the ensettlement of Israel in Egypt in Genesis46 in the strictly biblical year 1821 BC
2. The archeological evidence in Avaris matching the foreign Canaanite ruler who rose up in enmity above Egypt and initiated massacres and enslaved Israel in Exodus1:8 & Jubilees46:14 in the strictly biblical year 1729 BC
3. The archeological evidence in Avaris matching the biblical growth of Israel into a people of over 1 million Semites in Exodus12:37
4. The archeological evidence matching the Exodus of Israel in Exodus12:41 and the Expulsion of the Canaanite Hyksos (Manetho) out of Egypt in the strictly biblical year 1606 BC (conventionally 1531 BC).
In the Avaris Excavation Layers Map and the Avaris Site Stratigraphy System Overview (pictures) You can check the exact evidence:
A) The Column NEW CENTER is the location (F/I) of Jacob’s/Joseph’s palace You will learn to know in the beginning of Chapter Joseph.
B) The Column EASTERN TOWN is the Settlement (H) and extreme growth of the Hebrew mud hut town later slave town and the abondanment (D2/D1).
C) The Column NORTHEASTERN TOWN is the Canaanite settlement (A/V) of the 15th Dynasty (XV HYKSOS).
D) The Column PALACE DISTRICT is the western settlement (H/I-VI) of the 15th Dynasty Canaanite Elite transformed into a palace district in the second half of the 15th Dynasty (XV HYKSOS).
Bietak‘s excavation layers corroborate the history of Israel in Egypt
1. in layer H:
Israel‘s beginning Semitic Ensettlement in Avaris in the strictly biblical year 1821 BC: Bietak explains there is additional scriptive evidence of specialised Semitic settlements around the Middle Kingdom royal residence tj-t3wy from texts in the Illahun archives, especially from the reign of Amenemhat III. Regarding the growth of Israel in Avaris Bietak interpretes it as a peaceful “gradual infiltration.” Furthermore, Bietak believes this was done, at least at first, with the cooperation of the pharaohs. “It was a local population hub mainly of people from the Levant,” Bietak says. “It blossomed with the blessing of the pharaohs during the late 12th Dynasty. During the 13th Dynasty [1802–1640 B.C.] it became more and more independent.” (Curry 2018, in “Archeology”)
This is altogether corroborating Joseph’s biblical story and his family’s history evidenced in Chapter Joseph.
2. in layer G and under layer g:
a) “Bietak’s excavations also show that the local palace burned to the ground toward the end of the 13th Dynasty when the first Hyksos kings made their appearance in the historical record … In a series of pits dug near the forecourt of a Hyksos-era palace in Avaris, just in front of the throne room, Bietak found 16 severed right hands. He suggests that the amputated appendages were trophies taken by Hyksos soldiers in battle …” (Curry 2018, in “Archeology”)
b) Semitic war mass graves of massacred Semites in the strictly biblical time of the evidenced (Jubilees46:8 & Manetho) brutal Cananite Hyksos Invasion in 1729 BC; Because of 75 non evidenced and non existing years in the conventional Chronology of the 13th Dynasty Manfred Bietak dates the start of the Canaanite 15th Dynasty (after their invasion) 75 years too late and so erroniously assumes the war mass graves as to be epidemic mass graves instead; But sword or lance mass executions of war captives do not need to cause any bone damages (as claimed) and in an epidemic corpses were burned and not emergency burried beneath only a handbreadth of sand like in this case. Regarding his plague assumption Bietak writes himself „However, this is speculation as there is, as yet, no scientific evidence for such a plague.“ (Bietak 1996, p.34)
c) In the period after the Canaanite Invasion 1729 BC (mistaken for a plague) Avaris excavator Bietak observes many changes regarding his findings. They reveal archeological evidence for the heavy burden of enslavement for Israel. Their poor little mud hut buildings contrast with the big wealthy houses of the Canaanites, who are warriors and sacrifice donkeys and kill and burry the female Hebrew slaves together with their Canaanite masters. The hard slavework consumes their bodies and sceletons heavily:
„Physical anthropological research by Winkler, Willing and Grosschmidt™' has shown that the general physical condition of the population of Tell el-Dab a was poor. Anaemic diseases … affected at least one third of the population. So-called Harris lines in the long bones and enamel hypoplasia of the teeth, which indicate serious health problems resulting in the temporary arrest of growth, have frequently been found in human material from most of the strata. … It is thus far the tomb containing the greatest number of sacrificed donkeys. … During this period, many of the tombs belonged to warriors, who were normally equipped with a dagger and a battle-axe. … Servants were interred in front of the tomb chambers of some tombs in stratum F (Fig. 38; Plate 20, A-B). These servants were usually girls with strong bones. It appears that they were buried at the same time as their masters [Authors note: which is clear evidence for their female slaves being killed to accompany and serve their masters in the afterlife]. … In strata F, E/3 and E12, the originally egalitarian settlement pattern becomes socially differentiated (Fig. 42-3). In the programme of houses different types begin to occur. For the wealthier people, the more sophisticated floor plan discussed above, with a vestibule, a living room placed between a bedroom and a side room and sometimes with storage rooms became popular. The dependants of these upper-class inhabitants clustered around the houses of their overlords in much humbler buildings. …“ (Bietak 1996, p. 35-41).
3. For the development in the time of the 15th Dynasty Bietak assesses Avaris as the biggest contemporary town of the world - a megacity of millions of Semites archeologically matching the biblical growth of Israel in Egypt.
Due to 75 non evidenced and nonexisting years in the 13th Dynasty Bietak estimates like most Egyptologists the 15th Dynasty c. 75 years too late into c. 1650-1530 BC.
However Andrew Curry writes in the magazine Archeology: “Bietak’s analysis of Avaris isn’t without controversy …
when researchers tested grass seeds preserved at the site using radiocarbon dating techniques, the results were off by nearly a century … Ryholt says the dating remains an open question, and that not all Egyptologists share Bietak’s confidence.” (Curry 2018, in “Archeology”)
These radiocarbon results prove the Strictly Biblical Chronology right which reveals the timeframe between the Enslavement and Exodus of Israel 1729-1606 BC being also the timeframe of the 15th Dynasty of the Canaanite Hyksos.
4. above layer D/2:
Israel‘s Exodus out of Egypt (Eastern Town layer) and the Expulsion of the Canaanites directly after the Santorini Eruption and the following Ten Plagues in the strictly biblical, radicarbon, and pottery evidenced time around 1606 BC (the 75 years too late ‚1531‘ BC in conventiinal Chronologies are explained in the years 1785, 1625 and 1606 BC in the Chronology of Israel in Egypt in Chapter Chronology): This is confirmed by the archeologically evidenced complete Semitic abandonment of Avaris in the exact time of Israel’s Exodus out of Egypt and Ahmose’s Hyksos Expulsion. This is also confirmed by the excavated Thera Pumice above in the Canaanite Palace District - and NOT in the Hebrew Eastern Slave Town confirming Exodus 9:26; Israel was spared from the biblical tenth plague of darkness; the Santorini ash cloud lead to a biblical „darkness You were able to touch“. These unknown facts plausibly lead to wrong conclusions of Manfred Bietak: „Adherents of the high chronology [SC: 1620-1600 BC] for the explosion of Santorini have suggested that this pumice may have lain in the vicinity of Avaris for a long time and was only picked up during the time of the New Kingdom. This is possible, as the materials retrieved in H/I and H/III were collected in workshops. But in that case it is strange that no pumice has been found at Tell el-Daba [SC: he means the huge eastern poor Hebrew mudhut slavetown] in strata of the Hyksos period …“ (Bietak 1996, p. 63-84).
We will later in this Chapter critically investigate Manfred Bietak’s latest research results regarding Avaris which allegedly confirm the early Hebrew Hekhakhasut 1821-1729 BC having to be called „for convenience sake“ Canaanites.
Who were the Hyksos?
THE BIBLE SAYS
A FOREIGN RULER AROSE IN ENMITY ABOVE EGYPT
AND ENSLAVED ISRAEL
In this chapter, You find the deciding evidence revealing the first Canaanite Hyksos King of Egypt being the Pharaoh, who enslaved Israel and the last Canaanite self-called 'Hyksos' Pharaoh being the King of Egypt of the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt. It is the fundament for the integration of three controversial evidence-based perspectives - Finkelstein/ Bietak (Canaanite Perspective Evidence), Rohl/ Mahoney (Hebrew Perspective Evidence), and Dr. Liebi (Pure Biblical Perspective Evidence) - into one clarified lucid historical truth of the Second Intermediate Period of Egyptian History.
But beforehand it is necessary to learn to know a forgotten key source of evidence - the Book of the Division of Times called the Book of Jubilees - the oldest evidenced fragments of 200 BC were found in Qumran:
Photo 1) Qumran in the Judaean Desert is a location of millennia-old Caves in limestone cliffs.
Photo 2) In 1946 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the Qumran Caves.
Photo 3) The Shrine of the Book as a wing of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem houses
Photo 4) 2200 years old Scrolls and Fragments of the Second Temple Time Holy Scriptures
A FORGOTTEN EYEWITNESS REPORT
THE QUMRAN FOUND BOOK OF JUBILEES
- THE CHRONOLOGY OF GENESIS AND EXODUS -
The deciding evidence for Israel's enslavement by an enemy Canaanite Foreign King self-called 'Hyksos' in this Chapter has been discovered in the Book of Jubilees - originally called the "Book of Divisions of the Times" - and in the Bible itself. The Book of Jubilees is also sometimes called The Little Genesis. It is a textual comprehensive chronology of the first two books of Moses from the beginning of time until Israel's arrival at the Holy Mountain Horeb. It contains many additional background details not changing but confirming, complementing, and first of all, more precisely chronologizing the biblical story. Fragments of at least 14 different Books of Jubilees were found in the Caves of Qumran, thus it belonged to the most read books of the Qumran Essenians 200 BC. The Essenians did not only live in an isolated community near Qumran, but they also lived near small towns like Nazareth and most strikingly in their own quarter with their own gate in Jerusalem, one contemporary metropolis of the Roman world empire thus their entire scriptures were an easily accessible cultural property of the whole people of Israel in the Roman Empire, visiting Jerusalem three times a year as far as possible.
FOR OUR ELDER BROTHERS THE JEWISH G'D FEARING - THE BOOK OF JUBILEES
The Book of Jubilees is a source of the famous Jewish liturgical script Piyyut ("Elleh Ezkerah"), which was recited on Yom Kippur when it mentioned that Joseph was sold by his brothers on Yom Kippur. It also found its later echo in the Midrasch Tadsche and Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer and Genesis Rabbah/Rabati. Nevertheless today rabbinical officials are convinced, it only was really respected and used by the ancient 'Christian' or 'Messianic' Jews of Israel, the first followers of Yeshua as their Mashiach who called themselves the "Followers of the Way".
In Israel, DNA-Analysis results have proven 2020
that many scrolls were not written in Qumran but outside
so that the Qumran scrolls represent "a cultural matrix of
the greek-roman Judaea and their Jewish belief of the second century BC".
In the 3rd to 2nd century BC, the first Tanakh canonizing attempt was made by the Hellenistic Jewish elite in Alexandria Egypt. They naturally did not include the most anti-pagan and thus anti-Hellenistic Scripture into their Septuagint: First, because it attacked dangerously their Hellenistic lifestyle, and second because it is the only scripture claiming to be completely and directly dictated by an angel, the Angel of the Lord, to Moses who wrote it. Claims like these will be controversially discussed until the end of time between stronger and weaker believers like all parts of the Holy Scriptures particularly challenging the faith eg. the gigantic division of the sea into a dry path between huge standing wave walls. After the 2nd century AD, the Book of Jubilees only remained to be an official Holy Scripture in the Tanakh of the Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and in the Bible of the Ethiopian Christians, who were originally Jews (Acts8:27) same as in Israel. Thus for both, Jews and Christians, it has been belonging from the very beginning up until today to the Holy Scriptures in Ethiopia. There is no evidence for conflicts between Jews and Early Christian Jews in Ethiopia like in Israel and Minor Asia in the first centuries. This explains, why it was neither dismissed by the Jews nor later by the Christians of Ethiopia as it happened at that time first in Israel and later in the Roman Empire.
FOR THE CHRISTIANS - THE BOOK OF JUBILEES
Yeshua (Jesus) and his disciples were living at least three times a year and at least for one week in or near Jerusalem archeologically evidenced most likely in the Essenian quarter and homes. The Essenians are the only Jewish religious group not criticized by Jesus but they were also the only group not mentioned explicitly in spite of many strong archeological and ancient literal indications for his family clan and disciples for an essential part belonging to the Essenians. The Book of Jubilees is cited in the Script of Damascus which confirms that it was seen to an essential extent as Holy Scripture at least from the 3rd century before Christ until the 2nd century after Christ. In the time of Yeshua Jesus, the Jewish Canon of the Holy Scriptures was still in flex and still developing.
Holy Stephanos, a greek Jew and the first Christian martyr refers in Acts7:16;7:2 to the Book of Jubilees Chapter 46 and its Chronicle Jubilees1890: In his speech before his martyrdom, he for example refers to the burial of Joseph's 11 brothers, the Patriarchs, and to the Almighty's first appearance to Abraham in Mesopotamia. According to Genesis46:27 seventy descendants of Israel arrived in 1821 BC in Egypt. This number excludes five mentioned descendants Acts7:14 in the Stephanus speech; These died early without descendants in Egypt (the reason is explained in AK Emmerick, Secrets of the Old and New Covenant, german p. 104), they were Gad's son Eri Genesis46:16 and Dan's sons Samon, Audi, Jaka and Salomon, listed in the Book of Jubilees 44:20 footnote d) and Jubilees44:29 (Klaus Berger's translation). The speech and dispute is strong biblical evidence for the Sadducees as adversaries of the words in the by Jesus and his followers cited and trusted Book of Jubilees and of the Word in the Tanakh - Sadducees only accepted the Torah - including the belief in life after death, the resurrection, and the messianic prophecies. Stephanus reveals in his speech their falseness and wickedness and is stoned by the Sadducees in the complicity of opposing Pharisees like Shaul (Paul).
Side Note: The author witnessed in 2018 the result of a dispute between a messianic and an orthodox Jewish believer about "Stephanus evidenced not knowing the scriptures"; But in this case, neither the messianic nor the orthodox Jewish believer knew the content of the Book of Jubilees thus the messianic one was convinced by the orthodox one at the end and afterward taught the results excited in his bible study group; Thus Stephanus' biblical dispute and including mutual accusations seem to remain a dispute until the coming of the Messiah ...
Nearly all authors of the Second or New Testament refer to the Book of Jubilees: Jacob Jacob2:23/Jubilees30, Peter 1Peter3:19/Jubilees10, Judas Judas5&6, Paul Galatians3:17/JubileesChronic, Marc, Mathew, Luke Acts17:26/Jubilees8-11 and John Revelation14:6;16:5/Jubilees2,2.
Jesus himself, his disciples, nearly all authors of the Second or New Testament
cite and refer to the Book of Jubilees
as trustworthy, authoritarian, and maybe even holy scripture,
at least evidenced well known and trusted
by the disciples of Jesus in Israel.
Even Jesus himself (Matthew25:41/Jubilees5.10) confirms the authority of the Book of Jubilees identifying BaalZebul, Satan, the Devil as the "ruler of the impure ghosts". These ghosts are identified in Jubilees5 as the ghosts of the killed children of the fallen angels, the Nephilim. It was that part which was not thrown into the Abyss but stood under the top one Satan - called Maastema in Jubilees10 - the ALMIGHTY's opponent and highest Demon. Jesus also cites the Law of Compensatory Justice on the Heavenly Boards in Matthew26:52/Jubilees4 saying "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword". In Jubilees4 this law's practical example is Cain, who killed Abel with a stone and thus was killed the same way by a falling stone in his own house. For more evidence simply read The Book of Jubilees, Dillmann, Rönsch, 1874, pages 417-422. The Book of Jubilees also was in high regard with the old Church Fathers; For example, Epiphanios of Salamis cited essential parts of it in one of his works. Nevertheless, the book did not make it into the official biblical canon of the Orthodox or Roman Church after it was omitted in the Jewish Canonization process and because it was already missing in the Greek Pentateuch of Alexandria the Old Testament used by the Christians.
The Jewish Apostles and all first Jewish Followers of Yeshua Jesus thus evidenced strongly trusted the Book of Jubilees. Jewish ancient writings confirm that the first Christians occupied it in the eyes of the Jews for their messianic message, one more reason for the Jewish officials to dismiss it later in canonical discussions. Even Shaùl (Paul) as a highly educated Jewish Pharisee cited the strict tradition dedicated Book of Jubilees and thus consequently could have included them in his mind saying "All Scripture is G'D-breathed and is valuable for teaching the truth ..". In the later centuries, the 'Messianic' or 'Christian' Jews tragically did get ousted and lost in history and the Judaistic developing scripture canon became additionally to the Hellenistic Pentateuch one of the following authorities for the selection of the Old Testament Canon for the Christians especially for the Protestants 1500 years later. Thus nearly all Christians dismissed it also out of their developing canon. Finally, nearly all Christians and Jews are harmonically convinced today, that it never was seen as a credible script with authority or even as holy scripture in the time of the Second Temple, which is refuted by the Qumran Script of Damascus: A Quote of the Book of Jubilees Jub16 in the Script of Damascus CD16,3 shows, that it was also recognized as canonical (compare Klaus Berger, Book of Jubilees, p.295). It is also refuted by the Jews and Christians in Ethiopia having preserved it in their Bible Canon up until today.
FOR THE BELIEVING BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGISTS - THE BOOK OF JUBILEES
For Believers in the Tanakh/ Old Testament as a more or less reliable History Book who are archeologists or any other scientists, it is important to examine and realize the similarities of the Bible "disproving" rhetoric and argumentation as unproven antibiblical rhetoric and argumentation, with the paradigms against the historical value of the Book of Jubilees; As soon as You have realized the parallel similarities You have to honestly ask yourself if either, in fact, religious reasons or really your neutral observations do forbid to trust any word in the Book of Jubilees as a book of history. Two important unrefutable facts are that both sources oldest archeological evidence is from around 200 BC in Qumran and that both sources clearly claim to have been written by Moses at Mount Horeb 1400 years earlier in the time of the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt - in the pure biblical year 1606 BC, proven in Chapter Chronology.
Important Sidenote: It’s not the task of the author to prove or disprove which Jewish or Christian confession includes the correct or full amount of the Holy Scriptures in their Tanakh or Old Testament Canonization. The task of this work is to check archeological matchings with what the Bible really says WHEN what happened supported by all relating ancient scriptures and thus also the Book of Jubilees. At the end of this work, the reader is enabled to realize if the Bible (and also the Book of Jubilees) is a reliable archeologically confirmed History Book that never has been disproved in any way - or not - regarding the time of Israel in Egypt.
Picture: Text passage of the ancient Isaiah Scroll discovered in Qumran in 1945 (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)
This 2200-year-old original Old Hebrew text passage reveals one passage of Isaiah's prophecies generally unknown in Israel; it had been omitted in the Haftarah directory and in the communial prayers recited by the minyan in a Synagogue. For over 1700 years since Isaiah had written it virtually all rabbis and sages including Zechariah and Daniel identified it as a passage talking about the Messiah confirmed by the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 98b), by Yalkut Shimoni, by Rambam, by the Zohar, and in every Rabbinical Bible; Its Aramaic translation explicitly reveals it as an up until today hidden prophecy about the Messiah.
EVIDENCE A-B-C
FOR THE FIRST CANAANITE 'HYKSOS' KING OF THE 15TH DYNASTY
BEING THE PHARAO WHO ENSLAVED ISRAEL IN EGYPT
EVIDENCE A: THE CANAANITE 'HYKSOS' IN THE QUMRAN BOOK OF JUBILEES
The Book of Jubilees: Following Text is a part of Capital 46 of the summaric content overview of the comprehensive 15th-century Ethiopian and 5th-century Latin script of the Book of Jubilees by Herrmann Rönsch in 1874 AD.
Rönsch combined Dillmann's Translation of an Ethiopian Version with a received puzzle of Fragments of one-half of the Latin version from the 5th-century of the old monastery library in Bobbio, Italy.
The sentence of the 6th-century roman translation fragments differing from the Ethiopian translation is written in bold:
"Because Makamaron, the King of Canaan, when he inhabited the land of Assur, fighted in the valley with the King of Egypt (Sobekhotep III). And he killed him there and chased after the Egyptians to the gate of Ermon (Heroopolis?). And he couldn’t enter because a second new King (Wegaf) was King for Egypt and he was stronger than him ... (22 years later) the King of Egypt (Dedumose) moved out that he battled with the King of Canaan (Samuquenu/Salitis) in this 47th jubilee in the second yearweek in the second year … And the King of Canaan defeated the King of Egypt
… And the King of Canaan makes an evil plan against the Children of Israel
that he oppressed them and he executes his plan …
‚Look the people of the Children of Israel has become bigger and more numerous than us and then they will also battle against us, more than our enemies (the Hebrew 16th Dynasty of Southern Egypt), we want to opress them in their work because their heart and face is directed to the Land of Canaan.‘
And the King ordered work supervisors above them. Built fortified cities of these (Israel) are Phitom, Remesa/Romasse, and Oon. And they built dams and all walls, which had fallen (in the war) in the cities of Egypt. And (later) they enslaved them by violent force …"
Jubilees46:6-14 Rönsch/Berger
oldest latin version completed by the ethiopian version
The 6th-century original Latin critical deciding sentence is:
"Et cogitauit rex Chanaam cogitationem pessimam ut adfligeret eos." Jubilees46:14 Ambrosiana C 73 46:12-48:5
Sources:
1) The Book of Jubilees, Dr. August Dillmann, Herrmann Rönsch, Translation of the 15th century Ethiopian and 6th century Latin version, Leipzig 1874, page 237, Capital 46, page 161, 14th Footnote and page 86 Capital 46 14.
2) Prof. Dr. Klaus Berger, The Book of Jubilees, Gütersloh 1981 pages 538-539
3) Prof. Dr. James VanderKams, The Book of Jubilees, Louvain 1989.
(You can listen to the full 15th century Ethiopian Book of Jubilees in English on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVxJvSHUrjk)
The translation of the Latin fragment (in cursive) Ambrosiana C 73 from the 5th century by Rönsch clearly identifies the King of Canaan Memkeron as the new Ruler of Egypt, who enslaves Israel. This corrects the misleading interpretation of the one millennium younger Ethiopian script by Dillmann, where you find two short sentences: the second sentence pronominal subject shall refer to the first sentence object instead of logically referring to the first sentence subject as only plausible option: "And the King of Canaan defeated the King of Egypt and closed the Gates of Egypt. - And he ('the King of Egypt') made a bad plan against the children of Israel to plague them and spoke to the people ..." ('The King of Egypt') in brackets is Dillmanns personal interpretation instead of any translation and it is a grammatically obviously incorrect one. Supporting Dillmanns interpretation James C. VanderKam (The Book of Jubilees 1989) presumes the 5th-century text passage to be a false Latin translation with a misleading apposition and declares the one thousand years younger 15th-century Ethiopian translation as the correct original. To comprehend his presumption the reader has to know that VanderKam shares - like the majority of scientists - the dogmatic faith in the outdated by science self-disproved Ramesses Time Paradigm (see Chapter Chronology); Thus he evaluates the Book of Jubilees as biased and in the same way like Finkelstein evaluates the Torah; they consider these ancient sources exclusively as a fairy tale not permissible being examined, disproved or proved archeologically regarding the historicity of their timings or events.
In contrast to Vanderkam, Prof. Dr. Klaus Berger (The Book of Jubilees 1981) confirms Rönsch's 1874 translation of the King of Canaan becoming the arising new King of Egypt and enslaving Israel as the only plausible and possible original text content of the Book of Jubilees based on the Latin translation of the 5th century which is the oldest translation of the Book of Jubilees at all - with one exception ...
Future palaeographically analyzed yet unidentified Qumran fragments
of fourteen 2nd century BC Books of Jubilees with words of this sentence could prove the 5th-century sentence translation being closer to the original than the one thousand years younger 15th-century translation. Further and deeper reexamination of unidentified Qumran text fragments by Qumran sources subject matter experts thus could prove or disprove the findings of the 5th century AD by findings of the 2nd century BC.
You can read the whole Chapter 46 of the Book of Jubilees at the end of Chapter Joseph. It provides the time data which integrated into the Strict Bible Chronology reveals the biblical year 1729 BC as the year of the Canaanite 'Hyksos' Invasion.
EVIDENCE B: THE "HYKSOS" IN THE BIBLE
The Second Book of Moses - Exodus - introduces in Chapter 1 Verse 8
"a new King, who did not know Joseph".
How was it possible that Joseph, the savior of Egypt out of famine after complete eighty years of rulership over Egypt and only 21 years after his death (see page Chronology) was not known by a new allegedly Egyptian Pharaoh?
The answer is found in the Stephanus Speech in the New Testament Acts7:18.
A more precise old greek literal translation leads to the following elucidating translation:
"... until a „heteros“ = FOREIGN Ruler (= Ruler of Foreign Lands = „Hyksos“),
who did not know Joseph, „anistemi“ = ROSE UP IN ENMITY AGAINST Egypt.
This one acted with cunning against our lineage and mistreated the fathers so that they had to abandon their babies, so those didn't stay alive."
Acts7:18
The used greek word "heteros" stresses the different nature and strangeness of something and often means foreign: For example in Acts2:4 it is sometimes translated misleadingly (nowadays) into "other tongues" while Acts2:5,6 clearly shows that as a matter of fact "foreign dialects" hits exactly the point. In 1606 BC - the biblical time of Moses' authorship of his second book - there was no difference in old Hebrew between the meaning of "a foreign king" and "a ruler of foreign lands" both translated into Greek as „Hyksos“ in ancient writings of Egypt originally spoken "Hekachasut" in Egyptian. "anistemi" used intransitively like in this case does precisely mean "to rise up in enmity against".
However there is even more to the part „who did not know Joseph“; The word jādá can mean much more than only „know“ somebody: In 1 Kings 8:43, 1 Chronicles 28:9, and Psalm 91:14 it means „honor“, „acknowledge“, or „accept“ somebody. As we will see later, JOSEPH‘s statue was completely destroyed by the invading first Canaanite Hyksos King Samuquenu/ Salitis. This is an act of not only not honoring “jādá” the real first Hekhakhasut/ Shepherdking and famous savior of Egypt; It is an act of dishonorig JOSEPH which most plausibly is meant here with “not honoring”. So the most accurate translation would be „who dishonored Joseph“. Nevertheless it has at the very least to be translated as „who did not acknowledge Joseph“.
Thus Exodus1:9,10 becomes strikingly more plausible and self-explaining as a result when Exodus1:8 is translated literally:
"There a „hadas malak“ RULER OF FOREIGN LANDS = HYKSOS
who DISHONORED Joseph,
“qum“ ROSE UP IN ENMITY AGAINST Egypt …
and spoke to his people:
'Look, of the people of the children of Israel is many and more than us. Well on we want to dampen them with cunning, that of their will not become so many; because where war would arise against us, they might although like to switch to our enemies (the Hebrew Southern 16th Dynasty evidenced in Chapter Moses) and fight against us and exit to the Land (of Canaan evidenced in Jubilees 46:13).'
Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with heavy burdens; And they built for Pharaoh Pithon and Raemses as supply stores."
Exodus1:8-11 Martin Luther Bible 1534 AD
"hadas" means generally new, but in Yeremiah31:31, Hesekiel11:19 and Psalm33:3 it means primarily different, unknown, strange. In Deutoronomy32:17 "hadas" even means an unknown, strange and FOREIGN religion. Yesaya7:17 uses the same Hebrew words "hadas malak" for a certain RULER OF FOREIGN LANDS: The Ruler of Assur! And in our case we have again a Ruler of Assur who is called "hadas malak" which should therefore consequently also be translated as Ruler of foreign lands.
"qum": If You check Deutoronomy22:26, Psalm3:2, Psalm68:2, Isaiah14:22, Isaiah28:2,1 and Amos7:9 You’ll discover they all use "qum" as 'RISING UP IN EMNITY AGAINST' somebody.
CONCLUSION
The Bible even demands to translate
"hadas malak" as "Ruler of Foreign Lands" or "Hyksos"
and "qum" as "rising up as enemy against".
Further and deeper reexamination of hopefully yet unidentified Qumran text fragments relating to Exodus1:9.10 will additionally prove these findings - not only 5th century related but then even 2nd century BC related. This should be the main new research focus regarding the yet unidentified fragments of the Qumran Scrolls to clarify the history of the origin of Israel.
In the 3rd century BC, the Egyptian priest and historian Manetho counts the number of the Hyksos as two hundred and forty thousand. The Book of Exodus counts the number of male grown-up Israelites as over six hundred thousand, this was far over 2 million people in total and the excavator of Avaris Manfred Bietak says Avaris became most likely the biggest contemporary city of the world. Egyptologists estimate Egypt counted up to five million Egyptians that time. This would lead to the conclusion that only the Foreign Canaanite King instead of an Egyptian Pharao does make sense to say "Israel is many and more than us". The reader has to have in mind that the leading scientists have - driven by false paradigms without evidence - already dismissed not only all biblical never disproved ancient writings but also all nonbiblical never disproved ancient writings confirming any biblical event as historical (see Chapter Moses). Thus Leading Egyptologists even neither accept the Ipuwer Papyrus describing precisely the Santorini Eruption connected proven environmental disaster nor its describing biblical items of the Ten Plagues in Egypt, And the Ipuwer Papyrus is claiming distraught "Foreigners are said to be everywhere!" which clearly reveals You could not see any Egyptians without seeing also foreigners confirming the Bible together with Book of Jubilees: „and the land was filled with them.“ Exodus1:7
Further archeological evidence for a tremendous huge eastern Semitic people living in the Nile Delta has been excavated not only in Tell-Daba (Avaris) or Tel el-Maskhuta but also in Tell Farasha, Tell el-Maghud, El-Khatana, Inshas, Kom el-Hish, Tell Basta (Bubastis), Tell el-Kabir, Tell Yehudi, Tell Fawziya, and in Tell Geziret el-Faras. Other sites are Tell el-Kabir, Tell Still, and still even less than 20% of the relevant Eastern Nile Delta area is yet examined thus 2 to 3 million Israelites are easily possible as a number of inhabitants in 1606 BC. In spite of all this, leading egyptologists except any comparably high foreign population in Egypt and claim without any proving evidence a settlement process from Canaan over centuries excluding the high population growth of eg. 8 children per family through four-plus-two generations in Genesis1:2.20 & Genesis6:16-20 1821-1606 BC.
EVIDENCE C: CANAANITE ASSUR IN THE BIBLE AND THE BOOK OF JUBILEES
In his Prophecy for Israel Yesayah10:24 says
„Therefore Adonai Elohim Tzvaot the Lord God Zebaoth says:
'My people living in Tziyon/Zion, do not be afraid of Ashur/Assur,
even when he strikes you with a stick and raises his staff against you,
THE WAY IT WAS IN EGYPT.'“
CBJ Complete Jewish Bible
This leads to the questions
a) WHEN did Assur strike Israel with a stick in Egypt?
b) And WHEN did Assur raise his staff against Israel in Egypt?
a) WHEN did Assur strike Israel with a stick in Egypt?
Firstly Assur stroke Israel with a stick in Egypt in Isaiah 52:4 CBJ (Complete Jewish Bible):
„For thus says Adonai Elohim: “Long ago my people went down to Egypt to live there as aliens, and Ashur oppressed them for no reason.“
Secondly Assur stroke Israel with a stick in Egypt in the Qumran Scripture's Book of Jubilees Chapter 46 Verse 6:
"Because Makamaron (latin: Makamaron, ethiopian: Memkeron, SeferHaj1238: Magron), the King of Canaan, when he inhabited (occupied) the land Assur, fought in the valley with the King of Egypt (Sobekhotep III). And he killed him there and chased after the Egyptians until he reached the Gate of Ermon (Heropolis). And he was not able to enter because a second new king (Wegaf) was King for Egypt and he was stronger than him ... And Joseph died ... And the King of Egypt (Dedumose) went out to fight with the King of Canaan (Samuquenu/Sakitis) ... And the King of Canaan defeated the King of Egypt ... And the King of Canaan made an evil plan against the children of Israel so that he tormented them ... and they built ... Pythom, Ramassee and Oon ... And (later) they enslaved themby violant force."
b) WHEN did Assur raise his staff against Israel in Egypt?
Assur rose his staff against Israel in Exodus 14, in 1606 BC, 123 years after their invasion of 1729 BC, when the last 'Hyksos' Pharaoh as the only lifelong ruler = King of Egypt (Exodus14:5.8) and as the original Canaanite King from Assur is chasing after Isreal through the wilderness of Sinai to the Sea of Aqaba (see Moses Pharaohs).
The town and land name Assur/ Ashur is called "land of the sons of Shem" in the old scriptures: Assur was a son of Shem, son of Noah. Canaan as a son of Ham, another son of Noah, received the land of Northwestern Africa when Noah distributed the land to his tribes according to Jubilees9:1. Noah let all of them promise with a curse not to occupy other's lands according to Jubilees9:14. But instead, Canaan did not finish his travel to Northwestern Africa and stayed in the land from the Libanon to the Nile ('Levante') and occupied it. Since then it had been called Canaan, the former original land of Shem's son Arfaksad. In the time of Joseph as King of Egypt, Canaan for a second time occupied the land of the sons of Shem, namely Assur, mixed up with their people and so infected Assur with his curse. Thus according to the Bible as a matter of fact Canaanites are not Semites but instead Hamites and Anti-Semites, they were invading enemies against the Semites from the very beginning on. With this background, the reader has a better understanding of the meaning of the modern scientific attempts to make the Israelites 1000 years later descendants of the Canaanites. The same scientists demonstrate their doubtful scientific neutrality a second time by calling ancient Israel like also sometimes modern Israel Palestine, which translated means the land of the Philistines, their archenemies …
Assur/ Ashur is confirmed by Egyptologist Manfred Bietak's excavated evidence as in the region of origin of the Canaanite 'Hyksos' Pharaohs; Based particularly on temple architecture, Bietak argues for religious practices of the Hyksos at Avaris defining the "spiritual home" of the Hyksos as "in northernmost Syria and northern Mesopotamia" which includes Assur. The in the book of Jubilees mentioned valley of the first battle before 1750 BC is likely to be the Kabhur River Valley, having been the heart of Assur's lands for a millennium. Thus the second group of Semitic Hechashasut/ Rulers of Foreign Lands in Egypt was this time a group of "Canaanites with from Assur left marks on their kingship" as Bietak confirms. This happened in the time of Egypt's second battle with Canaanites in Jubilees47:11, which ended with the Invasion of the Hyksos.
Historical Science confirms that the Canaanites, more precisely the Canaanite tribe the Amorites, conquered ASSUR in the 18th century BC, usurped Assur’s throne and became inhabitants of the land Assur EXACTLY how the Book of Jubilees tells us. First Canaanite Usurpator and King of ASSUR was Shamshi-Adad I. A letter from Mut-Bisir to Shamshi-Adad I. of the Old Assyrian Empire has been translated: "It is in Rahisum that the brigands (habbatum) and the CANAANITES (Kinahnum) are situated". Shamshi-Adad‘s son King Ishme-Dagan is assumed by scholars to have been ousted by the Amorite King of Babylon Hammurabi. Ishme-Dagan‘s son Mut-Ashkur is assumed to have become Hammurabi’s Vasall King some time later (c. 1730 BC). The Book of Jubilees gives a more precise background explanation: Ishme-Dagan (here named Makamaron) was attacked by Pharaoh Sobekhotep III, in the Khabur Valley. After defeating him he invades Egypt and tries to take Avaris but he is hindered to enter. He settles down in front of Avaris in the Nile Delta (14th Dynasty) instead of returning to Assur after he receives the message that Assur is sacked by his Babylonian rival King. After two decades he successfully manages to enter Avaris and arouses in enmity as “a new King” over Egypt while his son is degraded to Assur’s Vasall King of the King of Babylon. The Canaanite Kings of the 14th Dynasty of Egypt in the Nile Delta in front of Avaris (c. 1750-1650 BC) are by their names archeologically evidenced Amorites. One example is the name Yakbim (Burke 2019, p. 67-91).
Artapanus - a Jewish writer between the 3rd and 2nd century BC - tries to clarify Manetho's descriptions of the 'Hyksos' who invaded Egypt: He says that the Arabs plundered Egypt. By this, he is transforming Manetho's saying "Some say they were Arabs" into a fact. As matter of fact the Canaanite Hyksos/ Foreign Rulers did not come directly from Canaan but instead indeed from another region further east - namely from Assur. Manetho also mentions the assumption that the 15th Dynasty Hyksos rulers come from Phonecia. This statement of the Phoenician origin of the Hyksôs kings had generally been discredited until the Ras esh‑Shamra tablets were excavated; They imply a pantheon strikingly similar to that of the Hyksôs and have shown that the 15th Dynasty Hyksôs were related to the Phoenicians. The 15th Dynasty Canaanite Hyksos from Assur had intensive trade contacts with Phoenicia and Canaan.
CONCLUSIONS
These are the "two or three witnesses" according to Deutoronomy19:15 and Matthew18:16 for the conclusion, the 'Hyksos' Kings were Canaanite Pharaos, who subjugated Israel into 123 years of Enslavement. Manfred Bietak's excavations and Israel Finkelstein's interpretations additionally confirm the Canaanites to be the only plausible candidates for the self-appointed 'Hyksos' of the 15th Dynasty.
Thus ancient writings did not "forget" completely the Canaanites from Assur as being the Pharaohs, who enslaved the people of Israel and later chased after them to the 'Red Sea' Yam Suph. This will be completely cleared up at the end of Chapter Moses. The explanation for why the Canaanite King Makamaron from Assur in the first battle "was not able to enter because a second new king was (already) king for Egypt" and why such a rapid meanwhile establishment of a second new Pharaoh was so easily and effectively possible is explained in the following Chapter Joseph.
After 80 years (Genesis41:46-50:26 and Jubilees40-46) of stability and peace for Egypt and Israel under Joseph's Family Rule in the pure biblical years 1830-1750 BC and in the 22 years (Jubilees46) after Josephs death, the Canaanites took over the role as Semitic 'Hyksos'/Rulers of Foreign Lands as Manetho correctly described only seemingly mixing and confusing them with the Hebrew Shepherd Kings of the 13th/16th/17th Dynasty. The reasons for this seemingly mixing up have to be explained at the end of this work in Chapter Moses when the reader has enough background knowledge to fully understand the whole picture. To finally sum it up - once more:
THE BIBLE SAYS
A HYKSOS/ FOREIGN RULER CAME UP AS AN ENEMY OVER EGYPT
AND ENSLAVED ISRAEL.
AND THE BOOK OF JUBILEES SAYS
THE ENSLAVEMENT OF ISRAEL WAS ORDERED BY A CANAANITE NEW PHARAOH IN 1729 BC.
THE SELF CALLED 'HYKSOS' OF THE BRUTAL INVASION IN 1729 BC
ARE NOT THE BY THE EGYPTIANS CALLED HEKACHASUT
OF THE PEACEFULL SEMITIC ENSETTLEMENT IN 1821 BC
The Strict Chronology of the Torah/ Old Testament upgraded by the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees reveals 1729 BC as the exact biblical and historical year of the Canaanite 'Hyksos' Invasion:
"Pharaoh (Sobekhotep III) moved out to battle with
Memkeron (Makamaron) the King of Canaan ...
and the King of Canaan defeated the King of Egypt
and closed the Gate of Egypt (1750 BC)."
"After having defeated the Egyptian King (1729 BC),
the King of Canaan (Semquen/Salitis)
makes the plan to oppress the Israelites and executes his plan.
Built Cities of these are
Phytom (Lahun), RaAmezes (Avaris), and On (LeOntopolis).
Under the pressure, the Children of Israel,
who are an abdorrence to the Egyptians, multiply."
(compare Rönsch/Dillmann Book of Jubilees, page 237,
Capital 46 and page 161, 14th Footnote)
Manetho, an Egyptian priest and historian of the 3rd century BC, is cited by Josephus:
"G'd was ungracious to Egyptian King Timaios (Pharaoh Dedumose) and smote Egypt .. the enemy (Canaanite King Samuquenu/ Salitis) came from the east, conquered the land easily, burnt down cities, destroyed temples and initiated massacres and ENSLAVEMENT ..."
Toatimaos or Timaios is Greek spoken; Old Egyptian spoken it means Dedumose; He was Pharaoh at the end of the 13th Dynasty in the Second Intermediate Period, the by Egyptologists so-called "Dark" Period (see Chapter Chronology).
Pharaoh Ahmose’s great granddaughter Queen Hatshepsut of the 18th Dynasty one century after the Hyksos Expulsion still clearly distinguishes between the "Hekashasut" Hebrew Semites who settled in Avaris before the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period and the Canaanite "Barbarians" who invaded brutally the land one century later:
"I have restored that which was ruins,
I have raised up that which was unfinished since the HEKASHASUT
(misleading translation „the Asiatics“)
were in the midst of Avaris of the Northland,
AND the BARBARIANS were in the midst of them,
overthrowing that which was made, while they ruled in ignorance of Re"
(Breasted 1988, Vol. 2, 125)
Manfred Bietak has excavated more and more archeological evidence for the Semitic ensettlement and population growth in and around Avaris already from around c. 1820 BC on.
This is the strictly biblical confirmed time of Israel's arrival in Egypt.
He found archeological strong indications for a Semitic integration into the royal family (see table at the start of Chapter Joseph) and for Semitic rulership tendencies one century before the upcoming Canaanite self-announced 'Hyksos' 15th Dynasty; Without any disproving evidence, he strongly rejects all ancient sources confirming the time of Israel in Egypt in the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1800-1600); Bietak and following Egyptologists more and more even completely reject the historicity of Manetho's attested Hyksos Invasion and defame his work without disproving evidence as "corrupted". Nevertheless, leading Egyptologists like D.B. Redford and Kim Ryholt confirm the archeological arguments for the historicity of this violent invasion: For example, the sudden frequency of writing errors in the 'Hyksos' inscriptions after the invasion and their sudden new self-designation as Hekashasut (Hyksos) differs clearly from the partly evidenced Semitic Pharaohs before the invasion having used solely Egyptian titularies (Kim Ryholt 1997, page 303 & footnote 1057); This does clearly reveal the Canaanite invaders 1729 BC (acc. to Ryholt '1649 BC') not being the same Semites like the ones having lived already in Egypt for a century.
One reason for the false conclusions of Manfred Bietak is the amount of over 75 speculative non-evidenced and non-existing years in the timeline of the Second Intermediate Period (acc. to the Bible + Radiocarbon Evidence = 1798-1606 BC, acc. to conventional speculations = 1798-1531 BC); These non-evidenced and non-existing years are the fundament of misleading conclusions: In case of a Canaanite Hyksos Invasion the archeological evidence of Canaanite cults does make most sense AFTER 1750 BC, the strictly biblical year of the failed first Canaanite invasion attempt together with the resulting ensettlement of the Canaanite 14th Dynasty in the Nile Delta north of Avaris. But in case of an upcoming 15th Dynasty one century later around 1650 BC as conventionally assumed it suddenly archeologically „proves“ that Canaanites had settled in Egypt already ONE CENTURY BEFORE the successful Hyksos Invasion! The year ‘1649’ BC for the start of the Canaanite 15th Dynasty is even by egyptologists themselves called a "highly speculative" time estimation. And it’s the fundament for religious Canaanite archeological evidence allegedly in the century before the start of the Canaanite 15th Dynasty.
Instead of all this, the ancient scriptively (Book of Jubilees & the Bible) attested year 1729 BC is the true biblical and historical year of the successful Canaanite Hyksos Invasion and takeover of Egypt after the Hebrew Hekashasut „Shepherd Kings“ already had been living and ruling for nearly a century in Egypt as the textual evidence in the Book of Jubilees will show at the end of this Chapter.
The reader more and more realizes now that the huge chaos and helpless guesswork of the therefore so-called "Dark“ Period of Egyptian History is caused by the interpretative invention and integration of over c. 75 non-evidenced and non-existing years into the Chronology of Egyptian History. This is rooted in a subjective, dogma dependant, biased rejection of nearly all ancient - never disproven - relating and confirming sources including the Bible. It is also caused by the dogmatic rejection of the possibility and plausibility of a rotation system of over 50 Pharaohs under the lifelong rulership of a four-generation Vizierkingship in three Dynasties (13/16/17); This conclusion had been discussed by Egyptologists like Rice, Hayes, Helek, and Junker (see passage headlined 'Ephraim and the 13th Dynasty' in Chapter Joseph). This Pharaoh rotation system of Shepherd Kings will be confirmed by an overwhelming amount of archeological evidence in Chapter Joseph and Chapter Moses.
Picture: Pharaoh Den "smiting the East"
First Semitic Immigrants from the East. Their Expulsion was initiated by Pharoh Den in the First Dynasty.
- HEKACHASUT OR HYKSOS -
- SHEPHERD KINGS OR RULERS OF FOREIGN LANDS -
According to Jewish beatified Anna Katharina Emmerich (1821: Secrets of the Old and New Covenant, in german page 80 and The life of Holy Virgin Mary, in german page 385) Eastern "Foreign Kings of Shepherd Peoples" in a nutshell Shepherd Kings from the caucasian region north of Mesopotamia would have immigrated into Egypt and ruled over a part of Egypt around the strictly biblical year 2250 BC. Their later expulsion would have been initiated by an Egyptian King. The mistaken highly speculative time estimation for this Egyptian King would be far too early and based on contemporary priestly astrology and visions trying to prove the Egyptians being the oldest people of the world. Anna Katharina Emmerich provides an elucidating evaluation of the 19th century Egyptology and its by pre-ancient errors misguided chronologization attempts up until today (1821: Secrets of the Old and New Covenant, in german pages 71-72).
According to leading Egyptologists, the first Eastern Foreign Invaders of Egypt were expelled by Pharaoh Den in the First Dynasty of Egyptian History. According to the ancient priestly King lists, King Den's reign timeframe estimation is '2970-2928' BC. The expulsion of the Eastern Semites is confirmed archeologically by the MacGregor plaque "with the picture of first Pharaoh Den smiting a Western Semitic enemy" (Russmann, Edna R.; James Thomas Garnet Henry 2001 Eternal Egypt). The inscriptions call it "The first Occasion of smiting the East".
Egyptians always disliked herding sheep, Shepherds usually immigrated from eastern foreign lands and the meaning of Heka Chasut transformed in the time of the Second Intermediate Periode from specifically Shepherd Kings into generally Foreign Lands Kings while foreign lands always remained to be meant as eastern foreign lands and the east was inhabited by Semites often being shepherds. The Canaanites from Assur instead weren't shepherds, they were warriors.
Manetho (cited by Josephus) explains the meaning of Hyksos by saying "Their race as a whole was called Hyksos, that is King Shepherds" for (greek) "hyk" (Egyptian "heka") in sacred language means king and (greek) "sos" (Egyptian "shasut") in common speech means shepherd or shepherds, hence the compound word 'Hyksos'. Thus Manetho still remembered the original primary specific meaning of Heka Chasut in the time of the Old and Middle Kingdom. More enlightening evidence regarding the Heka Shasut meaning originally not only rulers of foreign lands but also clearly Shepherd Kings is revealed in Chapter Joseph (passage headlined "The 13th Dynasty - a complete Hebrew Dynasty").
Here the reader finally fully realizes that the controversy about the meaning of the name Hyksos or HekaShasut in Egyptian, translated as Rulers of Foreign Lands or Foreign Kings on the one hand and as Shepherd Kings on the other hand is dissolved as both being correct for different time periods, locations and peoples: On the one hand, it was standing originally for the rulership of eastern Shepherd Chieftains over Egypt before the Canaanite ‘Hyksos’ Invasion attested by Manetho. According to Genisis 47:6 Amenemhet III made Joseph's brothers, the tribe leaders, the King's Shepherds over all his sheep and cattle. In Genesis 47:16 all flocks of sheep and cattle of Egypt were sold by the Egyptians for grain to JOSEPH as King of Egypt and so went into the control of Isreal's tribefathers; This supported the transformation of the title King's Shepherds to Shepherd Kings for JOSEPH's brothers and their sons, but even more reasonable evidence will be shown in Chapter Joseph ...
At the end of the famine, all Egyptians had sold their entire properties, land, and even their freedom to JOSEPH, who gave it all to Pharaoh. The Pharaoh owned now the entire land and the entire people of Egypt. From then (1816 BC) on in Egyptian History Pharaoh received 20% of every yearly harvest. This sudden tremendous concentration of power and wealth in the hands of Pharaoh and the sudden decline of power and wealth of the nomarchs is historically confirmed by Egyptologists. But they are not able to find a reasonable evidence-based explanation for this sudden phenomenon. On the other hand first, after Father JACOB in POTIPHAR's Khnumhotep's II Beni Hasan tomb was the first inscriptively evidenced HekaShasut as we will see in Chapter Joseph. His son JOSEPH became in this time Israel's and Egypt's highest Shepherd King HekhaKhasut ever and as the first Semitic Ruler of Foreign Lands, he also became the first Foreign King HekhaKhasut of Egypt. The Canaanites from Assur as one century later following Foreign Rulers and self-called ‘Hyksos’ were no eastern Shepherds anymore but soldiers and mercenaries (compare Manfred Bietak 2012, p.5) and usurped the glorious title 'Hekhakhasut' for themselves. Hekha "The High" used as Highlands or in sacred language as King and Shasut used as Shepherds decreased to the general meaning of Foreign Kings for all Semitic Kings in Egypt, no matter if Hebrew or Canaanite at the latest since 1666 BC but this will be deeper and comprehensively examined and explained in Chapter Moses.
The duration of the Canaanite 'Hyksos' Rulership would be 108 years according to the Turin King List and 149 years according to Ryholt (Kim Ryholt 2018). The Bible and the Book of Jubilees reveal that it was as a matter of fact 123 years; The 'Hyksos' Invasion and Israel's Enslavement in 1729 BC, twenty-one biblical years after JOSEPH's death, are additionally revealed by Manetho and by the archeologically evidenced time of the famous Hebrew slaves list in the Brooklyn Papyrus. The 'Hyksos' Expulsion in the time of the Ten Plagues in the biblical year 1606 BC is confirmed by Radiocarbon results of the contemporary Santorini Eruption related Environmental Desaster in Egypt, the confirming Ypuwer Papyrus and the Storm Stela of Ahmose I. The Exodus of Israel at the time of the Expulsion of the Canaanite 'Hyksos' is inscriptively evidenced in nearly all relating ancient scriptures and by even more archeological evidence which will be all explained in Chapter Moses.
Let's finally summarize what modern Egyptologists think to know about the HekaShasut or 'Hyksos' and their time in Egypt which was in the past mainly based on historian Manetho's accounts. This was before the majority of Egyptologists changed from believers to unbelievers and thus before the majority of Egyptologists began to dismiss them for inventing new antibiblical theories exclusively based on highly speculative excavation results interpretation against all relating ancient scriptural sources:
Manetho was an Egyptian priest who wrote about the history of Egypt in the Greek language in the third century BC. His writings are mainly preserved by quotations in the writings of Josephus, Africanus, and Eusebius. As noted earlier Josephus quotes Manetho to reveal the ancient evidence for the antiquity of the people of Israel. According to Josephus, Contra Apionem, I.14, §§ 73‑92): "He wrote in Greek the history of his nation, translated, as he himself tells us, from sacred tablets; In the second book of his History of Egypt, this writer Manetho speaks of us as follows. I shall quote his own words, just as if I had brought forward the man himself as a witness". Manetho identified the Hyksos of the 16th/17th Dynasty as Shepherd Kings seemingly mixing them up with the Shepherd Kings of the 15th Dynasty from "Phoenecia" or „Arabia“; Ancient historians Josephud, Africanus and Eusebius based on Manetho describe the Hyksos one time as Hebrew Shepherds of the Southern 16th and 17th Dynasty and the other time as foreign Northern rulers over Egypt of the 15th Dynasty from Arabia or Phoenecia. It is during the Hyksos rule of the 15th Dynasty that JOSEPH is said to have ruled in Egypt by ancient historian Eusebius which is a centuries later evidence for the mixing up and confusion of the Canaanites with the Israelites. This confusion was additionally mirrored in Manetho cited as calling the people of Israel "oppressors" of Egypt who call themselves "captives" in Egypt. Josephus writes "As for the additions which Manetho has made, not from the Egyptian records, but, as he has himself admitted, from anonymous legendary tales". These by Manetho added oral legendary tales caused essential confusion Josephus tried to dissolve. This confusion is used by Leading Egyptologists today to dismiss Josephus' complete citations of Manetho as alleged ‚textual corruptions‘ in order to make their new exclusively excavation-based highly speculative hypotheses work: These hypotheses dogmatically reject any historicity of the Bible.
Manetho's claim - when translating the title Hyksos - that sôs in the common speech was 'shepherd' or 'shepherds' is confirmed by the today's Egyptian word śʾsw for "Bedouins," which in Coptic became shós for "a herdsman," (Erman-Grapow, Wörterbuch, IV p412, 10). But as a strong indicator for Israel in Egypt it was then rejected by the leading Egyptologists; They built up a strong contra rhetorical argumentation. It is based on an artificial dualistic paradigm that sells the development of generalization tendencies in the meaning of the word 'sos' (from hill lands shepherds to hill lands foreigners) as an impossible and to be rejected option. Instead, as a matter of fact, this translational development is the most plausible consequence of the getting lost differentiation between the "Early" (Hebrew) by Egyptians called Hekhakhasut and the "later" (Canaanite) self-appointed Hyksos as this work will prove by evidence at the end of Chapter Moses. Now let's take a look at the different instances of the HekhaKhasut in the different Dynasties:
The first known instance of the name HekhaKhasut is found in the Beni Hasan tomb of the 19th century. The only statue of a HekhaKhasut was found in Avaris and is dated into the end of the 19th century. The name and the statue are archeological evidence of the striking Semitic influence on the royal rulership already at the end of the 12th Dynasty as we will examine deeper in Chapter Joseph. Manfred Bietak confirms many contemporary Semites serving as soldiers, household or temple serfs, and various other jobs for this time.
The second known instance of HekhaKhasut now clearly as Semitic Foreign Rulers are Semitic Pharaoh names in the 13th Dynasty ruling over complete Egypt. We will examine them deeper in Chapter Joseph.
The third known instance of HekhaKhasut now as a clear King's title is attested by Scarabs of the Nile Delta 14th Dynasty. Historian Manetho identifies the 14th Dynasty as a 'Hyksos' Dynasty confirmed by Leading Egyptology.
The fourth known instances are scarabs and inscriptions confirming HekhaKhasut as Northern Pharaoh title of the 15th Dynasty. Manetho (according to Africanus) confirms "the 15th Dynasty consisted of ‚Hyksos‘ from Phoenicia." Cited by Josephus Manetho tells about the brutal invasion of these 'Hyksos' and that their New King who arose in enmity over Egypt was called Salitis and "had his seat at Memphis, levying tribute from Upper and Lower Egypt" which claims the 16th Dynasty to have been a tributary Dynasty. He adds with uncertainty "Some say they were Arabs." "Phoenicia" and "Arabia" are both countries further away from Egypt than Canaan; Thus it was obviously not exactly remembered or known by the Egyptians in Manetho’s time that they came from ASSUR.
The fifth known instance of HekhaKhasut or Hyksos is attested by scarabs of the 16th Dynasty and is also confirmed by Sextus Julius Africanus's epitome of Manetho for the rulers of the Southern 16th Dynasty where they are identified as Hebrew Shepherd Kings. According to Eusebius Manetho identified them as Kings of Thebes which lead to Kim Ryholts List of 16th Dynasty Kings in this work (see tablet at the start of Chapter Moses).
The sixth known indication of HekhaKhasut or Hyksos is found in the Southern 17th Dynasty of Thebes. In several versions of Manetho, the 17th Dynasty is clearly identified as Hyksos Dynasty, a fact which is attributed by Bietak to textual corruption without any disproving evidence. Africanus identifies them as Hebrew Shepherd Kings. Egyptologists confirm that the Theban rulers are known to have „imitated“ the Semitic 'HekhaKhasut' both in their architecture and in their regnal names. They also confirm the evidence of “friendly relations” between the Canaanite 15th Dynasty 'Hyksos' and the 17th Dynasty of Thebes in its second half even including possibly a “marriage alliance”. You will find the resolution of these riddles in Chapter Moses.
The by leading Egyptologists confirmed fact that evidenced Semitic Pharaohs before Manetho‘s ‚Hyksos‘ Invasion have used solely Egyptian titularies for already a complete century (Kim Ryholt 1997, page 303 & footnote 1057) in contrast to the Canaanite self proclaimed ‚Hyksos‘ of the 14th & 15th Dynasty clearly reveals that the solely Egyptian titularies of the Pharaohs of the 16th & 17th Dynasty are by no means proving evidence for them having to be Egyptians and no Semites …
Thus the historian Manetho talks about brutally invading ‚Hyksos‘ of the 14th and 15th Dynasty from Phonecia or Arabia on the one hand and on the other hand he talks of Shepherd King of the 16th and 17th Dynasty without distinguishing them expressively as two different peoples; Thus he finally mixes and confuses the Canaanite Hyksos Expulsion with the Hebrew Exodus out of Egypt. The historical root course of this confusion is fully revealed at the end of Chapter Moses.
The 'Hyksos' are confirmed by Ryholt and Redford as foreign people from the near east. Manfred Bietak is strongly rejecting any difference between the „Early Hyksos“ of the 12th/13th Dynasty and the „Later Hyksos“ of the 15th Dynasty. Due to the strong supporting archeological evidence for historian Manetho’s documented Hyksos Invasion confirmed by Ryholt and Redford and due to female Pharaoh Hatshepsut's differentiation between the (Hebrew) „Hekashasut“ and the (Canaanite) „Foreign Barbarians" one century after Ahmose I (James P. Allen, 2002, pp.1-17),
Manfred Bietak had to invent a totally new not evidenced third group of NON-Hyksos invaders to make all evidence fit with hypotheses: He calls these (Canaanite) foreign barbarians "roving mercenaries" who allegedly had overrun Egypt in the time of the allegedly never happened Canaanite Hyksos Invasion. This way he tries to uphold his never-proven attribution of Manetho‘s facts to textual corruption (compare Manfred Bietak 2012, p.5). In order to understand his motivational background, the reader has to remember that the Egyptian government naturally has no political interest at all in any excavation project archeologically proving any past rulership of Israel in or even over Egypt.
Bietak under the constant watch of Egyptian Authorities who have made Avaris off-limits to the public under armed supervision can be watched during the visit of Simcha Jacobovici at Bietak's excavation site in his documentary: https://youtu.be/DqLsYonjvRY. Avaris is the most famous archeological excavation project in Egypt. It has been led by Manfred Bietak for over half a century now and is his life‘s work not allowing any risking of an excavation permission. This is also the most plausible explaination for his past change from calling the Early Hyksos Proto „Israelites“ to calling them „for convenience sake“ Canaanites.
Remarkably the archeologically evidenced strongly growing number of Semites and their influence in the Royal House in the 12th and 13th Dynasty is not at all mentioned by the oldest "sacred tablets" of the old Egyptian priests the historian Manetho referred to: The 13th Dynasty gets only one single sentence which is mentioning solely the number of rulers the rest of it‘s history is completely missing. The reason for this Egyptian historical silence around the 13th Dynasty will be completely unveiled at the end of this work in Chapter Moses.
The reader has to examine all evidence of this complete work until he will fully understand the history of and all painful reasons for the 3600 years old confused Hyksos Controversy up until today regarding the question "Who were the Hyksos?" But it will be worth it. The Veil on the Egyptian History of the Second Intermediate Period will be fully removed at the end of this work.
EVIDENCE FUNDAMENTS OF LEADING EGYPTOLOGY
FOR THE EARLY HYKSOS OF THE 12TH AND 13TH DYNASTY
BEING "FOR CONVENIENCE SAKE" CANAANITES
“The one who states his case first seems right,
until the other comes and examines him.”
Proverbs 18:17
Fundament A
Manfred Bietak's implemented modern Dogma in Leading Egyptology, that the peaceful settlement of Semites in Egypt 1821 BC and their career in the Royal House is proven as to be Canaanite is standing on the same fundament as another implemented modern dogma of Leading "Biblical" Archeologist Israel Finkelstein, namely that the complete Bible allegedly is disproved by the archeological evidence of Jericho: The by Leading Archeology self disproved ("There is no evidence.") Bible Forgers' Ramesses Time Paradigm (see Chapter Chronology), which is moving by Bible falsification the Exodus of Israel and the Conquest of Canaan three centuries away from the time the Bible states it really happened; The Bible claims since 3600 years that Jericho was conquered in the middle of the 16th century BC which is archeologically confirmed and Israel Finkelstein confirms Jericho's destruction in the same time in his book The Bible unearthed. But with the self disproved Bible Forgers' Ramesses Time Paradigm Finkelstein successfully mislead millions of Christians into the false conviction that the Bible would be a compendium of religious-political lies being 1000 years younger than it claims to be. This Ramesses Time Paradigm leads on the other hand additionally to Manfred Bietak's claim "Chronology does not permit" any Israelites in Egypt in the time 1821-1606 BC which the Bible declares as the time of Israel in Egypt.
Fundament B
A second fundamental "proof" for Bietak's hypothesis the Canaanites are the "Early HekaShasut" is the biblically stated and archeologically proved tremendous growth of these Semitic people in Avaris and the Nile Delta. Manfred Bietak without any disproving evidence against the Israelites or proving evidence for the Canaanites against nearly all ancient relating scriptures redefines this growth as "Asiatic" immigration from Canaan and forbids any Hebrew connections. Egyptologists avoid the word Semites because it includes the possibility of Israelites so they strongly force and establish the misleading word Asiatics for all Semites from Semitic regions because it's allegedly more "neutral".
Fundament C
A third fundamental proof for Bietak's hypothesis that the Canaanites would be the "Early HekaShasut" is the biblically stated and archeologically proved idolatry of Israel in Egyptian towards Baal and also Egyptian idols. Manfred Bietak without any disproving evidence against the Israelites or proving evidence for Canaanites simply presents Baal and Egyptian idols as proof against Israelites and for the Canaanites to be the 'Early Hekashasut' of Egypt.
Fundament D
A fourth fundamental proof for Bietak's hypothesis the Canaanites are allegedly the "Early HekaShasut" is the biblically explained and archeologically proved building style of the first and oldest Center House found in Avaris. It is a mirror of Jacob's, Isaac's, and Abraham's building style from the regions they lived in. Manfred Bietak without any disproving evidence against the Israelites or proving evidence for exclusively the Canaanites simply uses it as evidence for exclusively Canaanites being the 'Early Semites' of Egypt.
We can go on with this for quite a time but the reader will already have realized that no proving evidence at all exists against the Israelites and for the Canaanites being the 'Early Hekashasut' of 1821-1729 BC before the Invasion of the Canaanites (who appointed themselves as 'Hyksos'), historically confirmed by Manetho, the Book of Jubilees, and the Bible itself. And the Canaanite Hyksos Invasion is archeologically evidenced and confirmed by Kim Ryholt and other leading Egyptologists.
It is noticeable that whenever Manfred Bietak leads Exodus proponents with "pro-biblical" hints into a certain direction, he always leads the view as far away as possible from his excavation site of 15th Dynasty Avaris (watch eg. his lecture on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck4ZJFXYzaM or his discussion with Simcha Jacobovici in https://youtu.be/DqLsYonjvRY or his interview with Timothy Mahoney in his documentary "The Sea Miracle Part I" on www.patternsofevidence.com)
…
NEW LATEST RESEARCH RESULTS OF MANFRED BIETAK
REGARDING THE DIFFERENT HYKSOS IN AVARIS
The here critically evaluated Research Article „Who were the Hyksos?“ was published by Chris Stantis July 15, 2020 on https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/authors?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235414. While Chris Stantis wrote the original draft her authorship teamleader Manfred Bietak‘s role is conceptualization, funding acquisition, writing - review & editing. Stantis and her co-authors collected enamel samples from the teeth of 75 ancient people in three locations at Tell el-Dab'a (Avaris). They scrutinized the enamel for strontium isotopes and then compared the ratios with isotopes preserved in other remains and artifacts from the region and along the Nile, to determine whether the people living in Tell el-Dab'a were "local":
Any population growth is speculatively and paradigmatically claimed as migration „influx“ in competition with and opposition to the Biblical population growth of Israel in the Hebrew Ra-amezes in Egyptian called Avaris and in competition with and opposition to ancient historian Manetho‘s description of the (Canaanite) Hyksos Invasion and nearly all Bible related ancient writings regarding the correct time of Israel‘s sojourn in Egypt. Thus the archeologically corroborated originally Hebrew Hekachasut rise to power, here called the „Hyksos rise to power was not the result of an invasion … but an internal dominance and takeover of a foreign elite.“ according to Bietak’s team claims. That’s correct in so far the Hebrew Hekashasut rise to power was not the result of the one century later Canaanite Invasion but an internal dominance and takeover of a Hebrew foreign elite - namely Joseph and his family. But based on their Ramesses Time Paradigm against any Israel in Egypt they misuse this discovery to claim to have disproven Manetho’s Hyksos Invasion and proven an over one century long Canaanite migration process before the Canaanite 15th Dynasty …
They also used geochemical analysis to determine the sex of the individuals, to better understand the male-to-female ratio in Avaris: Isotopes in the majority of the teeth — belonging to 36 individuals — identified Semites having lived in Egypt in the century prior to the start of the 15th Dynasty of the Canaanites who called themselves Hyksos in 1729 BC (‚1649 BC‘); Here we are talking about the century after the Egyptians in 1819 BC already firstly called Father Jacob (Abishar Genesis24:2) and his son Vizierking Joseph (Khety Khnumhotep III) „Hekashasut“ - in greek Hyksos - namely in the tomb of Potiphar (Khnumhotep II) as we will learn in Chapter Joseph confirmed by a tremendous amount of biblical and archeological matching evidence.
The Bible and Egyptologist Kim Ryholt’s archeologically proven relationship findings will unveil in Chapter Joseph that JOSEPH and his sons EPHRAIM and MANASSE and his brother BENYAMIN and most likely many other grandsons of Father JACOB did not marry their Hebrew cousins but instead had Egyptian wifes and thus became a mixed lineage. Furthermore the Canaanites of the 15th Dynasty have always been described as military warriors with the typical occupier behavior of having taken native (beforehand Assyrian, now Egyptian) wifes to raise families; Nevertheless Manfred Bietak initiated a reinterpretaion of his new findings in competition with the Bible and nearly all relating ancient writings (see in the passage headlined THE TIME OF ISRAEL’S EXODUS OUT OF EGYPT at the start of Chapter Chronology) …
The all this confirming wide range of isotope values has unintentionally unveiled that the Hebrew Hekashasut of the 13th Dynasty in Avaris 1830-1729 BC (‚1991-1649 BC’) and the Canaanite self called ‚Hyksos‘ of the 15th Dynasty 1729-1606 BC (‚1649-1531 BC‘) in Avaris "did not come from one unified homeland," representing "an extensive variety of origins," according to Bietak’s study.
In the 15th Dynasty the palace district of Avaris was inhabited by Canaanites, Egyptians and mixed people. The much greater poor mud huts town full of Hebrew slaves was mainly full of mothers and children because many husbands weren’t able to daily return to their families due to the slavework being often far away from home; Already in Amenemhet’s III time many Hebrew men worked in Fayum, slept in Lahun and weren’t at home in Avaris too often. Time after time the families followed and Lahun became a Hebrew workers colony turning into a supervised walled Hebrew slaveworkers ghetto after the Invasion of the Canaanites. Thus the new Chemical analysis of the teeth in Avaris also revealed that „30 of the individuals were female, while only 20 were found to be male.“
Bietak‘s research team around Stantis was lead into totally different even opposite speculative conclusions because of the Egyptologists dominating paradigm of the by Jericho disproved Bible falsification based Ramesses Time Paradigm unveiled in Chapter Chronology and Manfred Bietak‘s resulting newly invented paradigm to call ALL Hekashasut/Hyksos for „convenience sake“ Canaanites:
The Canaanite Hyksos once ruled over Egypt, but they allegedly didn't arrive as invaders like ancient historian Manetho derived from much older priest inscriptions; In competition to the Bible and nearly all relating ancient writings - especially ancient historian Manetho’s history of Egypt - Bietak and Stantis sharply contradict Manetho‘s narrative (and sowith also the Book of Jubilees) about the Canaanite self-called ‚Hyksos’ have first appeared as an invasive army. Bietak already declared Manetho’s History of Egypt for this time period simply as „corrupted“ without delivering disproving evidence. Now Bietak and Stanton - competing with the ancient historian Manetho -attack and defame his attested Hyksos Invasion as „apocryphal“, „biased“ and „unreliable“. The large number of Semitic women -alleged "immigrants" - pre-dating the Canaanite 15th Hyksos Dynasty would suggest that these Semitic women allegedly „were at the forefront of a over a century enduring Canaanite immigration process“; their so-called Hyksos migration to Egypt would allegedly be reproved by these newest Semitic indications representing "an extensive variety of origins". The headline of their research results article, summarized by Weisberger and first published 2021 in „Live Science“, celebrates these antibiblical speculations with the claim „New discoveries regarding the Early Hyksos - Foreign dynasty's rise to power in ancient Egypt was an inside job“.
So the by Jericho disproved Bible falsification based Ramesses Time Paradigm of modern Leading „Biblical“ Archeology and relating Egyptology (see Chapter Chronology) is further strengthened by new speculative antibiblical interpretations of newest research results, which in truth instead as a matter of fact are confirming once again the Bible and nearly all ancient relating writings (see start of Chapter Moses). Stanton and Bietak sealed their allegations as leading proposition with the affirmation „The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.“ …
INVESTIGATION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THE 13TH DYNASTY ISRAELITES AND THE 15TH DYNASTY CANAANITES
You are invited to scroll back to the beginning of this Chapter and study the pictures of the Avaris Site Stratigraphy System and the Avaris Excavation Layers Map in order to better understand the following challenge of Bietak’s conclusions regarding Avaris:
The critical comprehensive comparison and confrontation of all differences between the archeological attributes of
a) the Semites of the 13th Dynasty in the New Center of Avaris (Jacob’s/Joseph’s Palace) in the layers a/b/c/d
b) the Semites of the 15th Dynasty in the Palace District (Canaanite Elite) of Avaris,
c) the Semites in the on an on growing Eastern Town of Avaris in the 13th Dynasty (Hebrews) in the layers E/F/G/H
d) the Semites in the on an on growing Eastern Town of Avaris in the 15th Dynasty (Hebrews) in the layers D/E
e) the Semites of the new Northeastern Town (A/V) of the 15th Dynasty (Canaanites) in the layers D/E
will be able to remove the Veil from Avaris and from Bietak‘s established false paradigm "All HekaShasut of the Second Intermediate Period are one and the same Canaanites".
The critical comprehensive comparison and confrontation of all differences between the archeological Avaris layers of
a) the allegedly c. 175 years counting 13th Dynasty (XIII 1820-1645 BC) and
b) the allegedly c. 115 years counting 15th Dynasty (XV 1645-1530 BC)
will be able to remove the Veil from Avaris and from Leading Egyptologists‘ established false paradigm that the 13th Dynasty‘s duration was nearly twice as long as the 15th Dynasty‘s duration. A independent critical analysis will reveal that the thickness and other attributes of the layers E and b clearly reveal that the 13th Dynasty duration (1821-1729 BC) and the 15th Dynasty duration (1729-1606 BC) are nearly equal. If at all one Dynasty counts more years than the other it has to be the 15th Dynasty (123 years against 92 years) instead of the 13th Dynasty. Maybe even this will be revealed by the thickness and other attributes of the layers.
This is already proven by the Radiocarbon results and pottery dating of the Santorini/ Thera Eruption and is explained in the years 1785, 1625 and 1606 (‘1531’) BC in the Chronology of Israel in Egypt in the middle of Chapter Chronology.
And here are first examples of a comparison and confrontation of the differences between the Semites of the 12th/13th Dynasty and the Semites of the 15th Dynasty:
THE CANAANITES
(15th Dynasty)
The Late Hykos of the 15th Dynasty were Canaanite warriors and were buried with a huge amount of weapons and together with their killed maidservants and with sacrificed donkeys.
The late Canaanit Hyksos of the 15th Dynasty built tempels to worship the northern syrian idol Haddat/ Baal equated by the Egyptians with the idol Seth, the adversary of Osiris
whereas instead
the Early Hebrew Hyksos also partly fell into idolatry and worshipped Baal but became much more egyptanised and invested in building two Pyramids and in upbuilding the temple of Osiris as evidenced in the 13th Dynasty for the mid 18th century BC.
The Canaanites are often depicted with
1. knee-free short skirts instead of knee-covering long skirts
2. white or cross striped simply patterned clothing instead of lengthways striped filigree patterned multicolored clothing
3. bandaged edges cut shoulder length mushroom head haircut instead of unbandaged not edges cut neck free hair
4. corner's cut goatee beard or corner's cut full beard sometimes with mustache instead of not corner's cut full beard without any mustache
5. flails and cudgels instead of compound bows and throw sticks
Canaanites
wearing short cross striped skirts:
Middle Kingdom 12th Dynasty Beni Hasan
Nomarch Ameny tomb
Canaanites
wearing short cross striped skirts:
Middle Kingdom 12th Dynasty Beni Hasan
Ameny & Khnumhotep I
Canaanites
15th century BC
Canaanites
15th century BC
Canaanite
13th century BC
Canaanite
14th century BC
THE ISRAELITES
(13th Dynasty)
The 12th/13th Dynasty Semites in Egypt, the so-called "Early Hyksos", are depicted in Khnumhotep's II Tomb in Beni Hasan and they are precisely examined in Chapter Joseph. In clear contrast to the Canaanites they have
1. knee-covering long skirts instead of knee-free short skirts
2. white or lengthways striped filigree patterned multicolored clothing instead of cross striped simply patterned clothing
3. unbandaged NOT edges cut neck free hair instead of bandaged edges cut shoulder length mushroom head haircut
4. NOT corner's cut full beards without mustache instead of corner's cut goatee beards or corner's cut full beards with mustache
5. compound bows and throw sticks instead of flails and cudgels
"Ye shall not cut the edge of your scalp,
neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard"
Vayikra/Leviticus 19:27 OJB
The "Early Hyksos"
the Foreign Semites in Egypt of the 19th century BC
are wearing an up until today
unique Hebrew explicitly biblical hair and beard cut
in clear distinguishing contrast to the Canaanites.
Sidenote: If You look at Joseph’s Semitic (end of this Chapter) and Egyptian (Chapter Joseph) sculpture You will discover that his hair is not his hair but a wig and his Egyptian King’s beard is not his beard but artificial so that he doesn’t break any later written down law of Moses.
Weaponed with compound bows and throw sticks instead of flails and cudgels
Knee-covering long skirts & white or lengthways striped filigree patterned multicolored clothing
Unbandaged neck free hair & not edge’s cut full beard without mustache
THE EGYPTIANS WERE ABLE TO CLEARLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN CANAANITES AND ISRAELITES
In both following reliefs You can see how clearly and precisely the Egyptians differentiated between Canaanites and other Eastern Semites of the same region: In the first picture of the New Kingdom You see on the right hand side a Canaanite and on the left hand side a Syrian of the same region. In the second picture You see the Berlin Pedestal of 1427-1351 BC identifying and clearly distinguishing from left to right
1. the Philistine („Ashkelon“) on the left hand side looking the same like
2. the Canaanite („Canaan“) in the middle looking different to
3. the Isrealite („Israel“) on the right hand side
And again - now even in one and the same picture - You can clearly distinguish between the bandaged edges cut shoulder length mushroom head haircut and artificial edge’s cut big beard or small goatee beard of the Canaanites and the different hairstyle and beard of the Syrian kinsman in the first picture and the unbandaged neck free hairstyle & natural beard of an safely identified Israelite in the second/third picture.
Right: Canaanite
Left: Syrian or Israelite
Left to right:
1. Philistinian
2. Canaanite
3. Israelite
Second perspective:
1. Ashkelon
2. Canaan
3. Israel
THE FIRST HEKACHASUT
WAS HEBREW AND A UNIQUE
GLORIOUS RULER OF FOREIGN LANDS
JOSEPH was the first and uniquely famous and popular Ruler of Foreign Lands and Shepherd King in Egyptian history. His statue is the only statue of an obviously foreign king and "All the Egyptians were honoring the children of Israel for all of Joseph's lifetime" Jubilees46:2. But one century after this first peaceful settlement of Hebrew Semites followed a second brutal invasion of Canaanite Semites with destruction, massacres, and enslavement: 112 years of stable peace were followed by 123 years of Oppression of Egyptians and Enslavement of Israelites. The enslavement was not able to stop the tremendous growth of Israel and the more and more growing Avaris mud huts town. In the light of the amazing similarities, Avaris Excavator Manfred Bietak first calls the inhabitants "Proto Israelites"; Later he has to contradict his statement and calls them 'Canaanites'. He finally strongly rejects the biblical and archeological evidenced growth of this Semitic Population hanging on to the outdated disproved Exodus Ramesses Time Paradigm; Avaris as his excavation project depends on restrictive Egyptian permission conditions - Egypt explicitly rejects any historical influential past of Israel in Egypt. This fact and the by Leading Egyptology long ago disproved ("There is no evidence") and at the same time still dogmatically defended Ramesses Time Paradigm have an essential impact on the doubtful neutrality, objectivity, and independence of Egyptology as a science and explains the chaotic clueless guesswork in darkness regarding the "Dark" Second Intermediate Period of Egyptian history as this work will fully reveal in the next Chapters.
The Canaanite self-appointed 'Hyksos' are the contrasting second period of Semitic "Rulers of Foreign Lands" in the Second Intermediate Period of Northern Egypt. But up until today, they are identified as the 'only' Hyksos. Manetho's account from the 3rd century BC, as recorded by Josephus in the 1st century AD, describes the Hyksos Invasion as an armed foreign invasion with little resistance, burnt cities, destroyed temples, and Enslavement. Samuquenu/ in greek called Salitis, was not only the biblical "Foreign King, who did not acknowledge Joseph": He is also the most plausible rival candidate for destroying Joseph's first Statue in Avaris and deleting his name from all inscriptions as a common temporary rival ruler action.
Picture: David Rohl & Tim Mahoney's
reconstruction of JOSEPH's
destroyed statue
JOSEPH's destroyed statue parts: The original remains of the brutally destroyed huge statue of the Semitic highest royal official with pointing out light skin and red hair as Semitic attributes, an also biblically evidenced multicolored coat in a small pyramid tomb with the posture of Egyptian RULERSHIP. It is found without remains of the body skeleton in the garden of the Palace of Avaris of Amenemhet's II time and has twelve extra large palace pillars and twelve graves. According to Janice Kamrin (see Chapter Joseph) he "holds a throwing stick against one shoulder, in a pose similar to that of an Egyptian KING (who holds, instead, the crook and/or flail)". Egyptologist Eigner considers it probable that the sculpture belongs to the late 12th Dynasty and concludes "the presence of high Asiatic functionaries who were obviously in the service of the Egyptian crown is very evident". Explore more relating evidence in Tim Mahoney's Exodus documentary on www.patternsofevidence.com or for free on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBZnEq1JC84.
CONCLUSIONS
There is NO evidence PROVING
the Semites of the 12th and 13th Dynasty
in Egypt being Canaanites.
There is NO evidence DISPROVING
the Semites of the 12th and 13th Dynasty
in Egypt being Israelites.
Chapter Joseph delivers sufficient
patterns of archeological evidence
revealing the opposite is the case.
Postulated dogmas of Egyptology and Leading 'Biblical' Archeology
against any Israel in Egypt
stand and fall with the by themselves disproved
Bible Forgers' Ramesses Time Paradigm.
The self-disproved Bible Forgers' Ramesses Time Paradigm
is the fundament for discarding nearly all relating ancient writings about the time of Israel in Egypt. Nearly all of them confirm the time of the Hyksos in Egypt
as the time of Israel in Egypt.
The Book of Jubilees unveils the 3600 years old Hyksos Israel Controversy to be an obsolete dualistic historical confusion.
It is delivering the evidence for Egypt having been ruled
for 99 years by peaceful settled Israelites and then
for 123 years by brutally invaded Canaanites.
The complete self-called "Dark" Second Intermediate Period
enlightened by the Bible and all relating ancient writings
turns out to be the Time of Israel in Egypt.
SIDENOTE
- THE 14TH DYNASTY -
A SECOND UPCOMING GAP OF AROUND 75 MISSING YEARS
IN THE SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD OF EGYPTIAN HISTORY
It can not be just a coincidence that the Bible reveals around 75 Radiocarbon results proved non-existing years in the Second Intermediate Period (Chapter Chronology Timetable) and at the same time, two different scientific duration estimations of the 14th Dynasty also reveal a duration difference of 75 years. This huge speculative variety of the duration of the 14th Dynasty is discussed in science between Ryholt, Bietak and other egyptologists.
The town Xios in the Nile Delta is the eldest evidence-based candidate (Manetho) for the capital of this Dynasty with strong interconnections to the land of Canaan. The beginning of the 14th Dynasty is indicated in the Book of Jubilees (Jub 46:6-12 readable at the end of Chapter Joseph headlined "The Real Dark Period") in the biblical time of around 1750 BC shortly before Joseph's death at the end of the first war between the 13th Dynasty and the Canaanite Hyksos. The most plausible end of the 14th Dynasty is around 1666 BC - the reunification of Egypt under Canaanite northern 'Hyksos' Pharaoh Khayan and his Hebrew son-in-law southern Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV as archeologically evidenced explained in Chapter Moses.
The plausibility of the assumption that in 1750 BC after they failed in conquering Avaris the Canaanites did not return to Assur but settled in the Nile Delta and partly settled in later called Canaan in this time is confirmed by contemporary archeological evidence (Ryholt 1997, pp. 251/291 & Baker 2008, p. 503). After the Canaanite 'Hyksos' Invasion of 1729 BC - evidenced in Manetho's History of Egypt - the 14th Dynasty most likely proceeded as a Canaanite Vassall Kingdom under the 15th Dynasty until the time of the reunification of Egypt 1666-1658 BC under Canaanite 'Hyksos' Pharaoh Khayan and his Hebrew son in law ULAM the Southern Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV. The most striking archeological evidence for this biblical confirmed timeframe is the discovery of the seals (27) of a Nile Delta ruler; he was called YaqubHar/ Yakubher: Kim Ryholt points to one scarab seal excavated in Canaan which was estimated into 1750-1650 BC.
Radiocarbon Experts (see Chapter Chronology) disproved the official timeframe of the Second Intermediate Period including about 75 non-existing years based on wrong scientific guesswork regarding incorrect orderings, reign times, and the inclusion of unidentified fictitious kings in the Turin List (compare Kim Ryholt 1997, p.12-17). This has led to chaos and confusion regarding this period. Kim Ryholt estimates the 14th Dynasty into the timeframe between Pharaoh Nofrusobek and the Hyksos Invasion at the end of the 13th Dynasty which would be the biblical and archeologically evidenced time 1789-1729 BC. Still being biased by the one century old outdated and self disproved Ramesses Time Paradigm (see Chapter Chronology) Egyptologists put the biblical and archeologically confirmed timeframe of 1789-1729 BC into an extremely stretched timeframe conception of 1805-1650 BC ignoring the complete amount of biblical and relating ancient writings time data and inventing at least 75 additional non-existing years into Egyptian History.
On the other hand already before 1955, Egyptologist James Henry Breasted concluded Jacobher/ Yacubher being a possible first Israelite tribe leader in the Nile Delta (w. Keller, 1955, p.) refreshed by Simcha Jacobovici's interpretation of a signet ring excavated by Manfred Bietak in Avaris with the inscription Yakov similar to the Hebrew Ya'aqov meaning Jacob. This would fit into Ryholt's timeframe theory meaning 1798 BC after Amenemhet's III death JOSEPH's father JACOB's sons would have ruled the northern Nile Delta from Avaris while JOSEPH ruled together with his son over the rest of Egypt. But this is refuted by Emmerich and Josephus who reveal that after father JACOB's death (1804 BC) the tribe-fathers changed their hometown from Avaris to Heliopolis/ On (see Chapter Joseph) while JOSEPH and his sons stayed in Avaris. It also seems to be falsified by the already mentioned archeologically confirmed scientifically estimated timeframe of around 1750-1650 BC for the 14th Dynasty.
The most plausible conclusion is the 14th Dynasty started after the first war between the Canaanites and the 13th Dynasty shortly before the biblically evidenced year 1750 BC in the Nile Delta. The Canaanites did not leave Egypt but stayed in the Northern Nile Delta while the strongly fortified gates to the rest of Egypt closed them out as the Book of Jubilees will reveal in the next passage. The 14th Dynasty ended most plausibly a century later with the short-term reunification of the Egyptian Kingdom under Canaanite northern Pharaoh Khayan and Hebrew southern Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV at about 1766 BC, explained in Chapter Moses. This leads to the conclusion that the first Canaanite King of the 14th Dynasty from 1750 BC onwards would have been Makamaron from Assur in Jubilees 46:6 and SepherHajaschar 1923p.1238. His Assyrian name was most plausibly Ishme-Dagan as we have learned already. He settles down in front of Avaris in the Nile Delta instead of returning to Assur after he receives the message that Assur is sacked by his Babylonian rival King. His Egyptian name was most plausibly Yab’ammu Nubwoserre or Qareh Khawoserre. And the first Canaanite King of the 15th Dynasty from strictly biblically 1729 BC onwards would have been most likely a new commander of the Canaanite troops. He was named in Egyptian Samuquenu and in Greek Salitis. Ryholt (p.127) estimates a rulership start of the Hykos 14th Dynasty in the time after the rulership of Amenemhet’s daughter Nofrusobek and sowith in the time of the Hebrew Shepherd Kings. However Bietak argues that the start should have been around 1720 BC. The Strict Bible Chronology together with the Book of Jubilees unveals the 14th Dynasty started 1750 BC and the 15th Dynasty started 1729 BC.
THE REAL "DARK PERIOD" OF EGYPTIAN HISTORY
AND FOR ISRAEL IN EGYPT
THE BOOK OF OF JUBILEES UNVEILS MANETHO’S HYKSOS INVASION
AS THE INVASION OF CANAANITES AND THE ENSLAVEMENT OF ISRAEL
At the end of this Chapter we return to the time of JOSEPH's death, the end of the Golden Age of Egypt, and the beginning of the dark age for Egypt and for Israel:
The complete Second Intermediate Period of Egypt is called by Egyptologists the "Dark Period of uncertain time estimates with high degrees of speculation" and „the time of weak kingdoms". The contemporary Egyptians called the first half of it archeologically evidenced the "Golden Times" and we have already found out how “weak and dark” the time of JOSEPH's rulership in contrast to Egyptologists’ hypothesises as a matter of fact was. But was there any real Dark Period in the Second Intermediate Period?
The peaceful and prosperous time for Egypt and Israel under Joseph and his Family as "Rulers of Foreign Lands" and as "Shepherd Kings" did decrease after Joseph's death, latest with the 'Hyksos Invasion'. Before JOSEPH died in 1750 BC his son and "troup commander of the ruler" leads as his announced Pharaoh Sobekhotep III a battle against the Canaanites of Assur and is killed (Jubilees 46:9) by their king. 21 years (Jubilees 46:8) later the Canaanite king’s commander Semquenu/ Salitis 1729 BC ('1648 BC') is defeating Pharaoh Tiatimaos/ Dedumose and conquering Avaris Jubilees 46:11. "Ryholt believes that facing the invasion of his territory by the Hyksos, Dedumose tried to sue them for peace, as indicated by his name 'The peace of Ra is stable; He who brings peace; He who rescues the two lands'". Israel is thrown into 123 years of enslavement, ordered by the Canaanites, but mainly initiated and exploited by the Egyptians until 1606 BC ('1536 BC') the very same year of Israel's Exodus and the immediately following 'Expulsion of the Hyksos'. These are two related Semitic-Egyptian events of repressed memory. Thus they have been being confused with each other for millennia up until today.
The Ethiopian Book of Jubilees (James C. VanderKams Translation of "all" known Books of Jubilees in 1989 http://www.beit-nitzachon.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Book-of-Jubilees.pdf) describes the time from Father JACOB's/ ISRAEL's death until the Enslavement of Israel as follows and provides the time data for the biblical year 1729 BC as the year of the Hyksos Invasion:
"46:1 After the death of Jacob, the children of Israel became numerous in the land of Egypt. They became a populous nation, and all of them were of the same mind so that each one loved the other and each one helped the other. They became numerous and increased very much — even for ten weeks of years [= 70 years] — for all of Joseph's lifetime.
46:2 There was no satan or any evil one throughout all of Joseph's lifetime that he lived after his father Jacob because all the Egyptians were honoring the children of Israel for all of Joseph's lifetime.
46:3 Joseph died when he was 110 years of age. He had lived for 17 years in the land of Canaan; for ten years he remained enslaved; he was in prison for three years, and for 80 years he was ruling the entire land of Egypt under the pharaoh. 46:4 He died and all his brothers and all of that generation.
46:5 Before he died he ordered the Israelites to take his bones along at the time when they would leave the land of Egypt.
46:6 He made them swear about his bones because he knew that the Egyptians would not again bring him out and bury him on the day in the land of Canaan, since Makamaron (Memkeron), the King of Canaan, — while he was living in the land of Assur — fought in the valley with the king of Egypt and killed him there. He pursued the Egyptians as far as the gates of Ermon.
46:7 He was unable to enter because another new king ruled Egypt. He was stronger than he, so he returned to the land of Canaan and the gates of Egypt were closed with no one leaving or entering Egypt.
46:8 Joseph died in the forty-sixth jubilee, in the sixth week, during its second year. He was buried in the land of Egypt, and all his brothers died after him.
46:9 Then the King of Egypt went out to fight with the King of Canaan in the forty-seventh jubilee, in the second week, during its second year. The Israelites brought out all the bones of Jacob's sons except Joseph's bones. They buried them in the field, in the double cave in the mountain.
46:10 Many returned to Egypt but a few of them remained on the mountain of Hebron. Your father Amram remained with them.
46:11 The king of Canaan conquered the king of Egypt and closed the gates of Egypt.
46:12 He conceived an evil plan against the Israelites in order to make them suffer. He said to the Egyptians: 46:13 'The nation of the Israelites has now increased and become more numerous than we are. Come on, let us outwit them before they multiply. Let us make them suffer in slavery before war comes our way and they, too, fight against us. Otherwise, they will unite with the enemy and leave our land because their mind(s) and face(s look) toward the land of Canaan'.
46:14 He appointed taskmasters over them to make them suffer in slavery. They built fortified cities for the pharaoh — Pithom and Ramses. They built every wall and all the fortifications which had fallen down in the cities of Egypt.
46:15 They were enslaving them by force, but however much they would make them suffer the more they would multiply and the more they would increase.
46:16 The Egyptians considered the Israelites detestable."
"detestable":
Many Bible external ancient writings confirm the Egyptian grown antisemitism or they are written themselves from an antisemitic perspective. But what they all have in common is they clearly confirm the sojourn of Israel in Egypt and their later leaving out of Egypt as a historical fact, which is the main reason for having been dismissed as historical source without disproving evidence by Leading Archeologists and Egyptologists after they have turned from a believer’s into an unbelievers’ majority:
Bible external ancient writings confirming Israel in Egypt are
c. 1200 BC Poseidonios (Diodorus),
c. 300 BC Hekataios of Abdera (Diodorus),
c. 300 BC Manetho (Josephus),
c. 200 BC Chairemon (Josephus),
c. 100 BC Lysimachos (Josephus),
c. 40 AD Apion (Josephus),
c. 0 Strabon,
c. 100 AD Tacitus
Not so far away from the truth ancient Christian historian Eusebius estimated the Canaanite Hyksos rulership into the time of Joseph: „It was in their time that Joseph was … King of Egypt.“ This is correct for the 14th Dynasty and nearly correct for the start of the 15th Dynasty. Leading Historical Science had been holding this view up until the 1960’s until its majority changed from believers to unbelievers …
ISRAEL IN EGYPT
GENEALOGY
Israel's Genealogy in Egypt according to the rediscovered first and only unfalsified Strict Bible Chronology - You find the archeological evidence background explanation in Chapter Chronology, Joseph and Moses.
JOSEPH's LINEAGE
ABRAM > ABRAHAM
*2111-1936+ BC
WIFES
& Wife SARAH
& Maid HAGAR
BROTHERS
KINGS OF EGYPT
Pharaoh Mentuhotep II
ISAAC
*2011-1831+ BC
& Wife REBECCA
Brother ISHMAEL
JACOB > ISRAEL
*1951-1804+ BC
& Wife LEAH
& Wife RACHEL
& Maid BILHAH
& Maid ZILPAH
Brother ESAU
Pharaoh Senwosret III
JOSEPH
Grandvizier Senwosret-Ankh Amenemhet-Ankh Khety KhnumHotep
*1860-1750+ BC
Rulership:
1830-1750 BC
- God Sealer
- Gate of Foreign Lands
- Pharaoh's
"Real Friend" - Overseer of Fields & of the Hunters
- Arm of Month
- Mayor
- Mouth of Nekhen
Viziernames:
- Senewosret- Ankh
- Amenemhet-Ankh
- Kethi/Kheti
- Khnum-hotep
- Za-Month
- later Mont(u)hotep
& Wife ASENATH, ESENUT Ahenut, Henutsen, Henut
Daughter of POTIPHERA Khnumhotep II
- Priestess
- Queenmother
- "Mother of Gods"
Mother of
2 Viziers:
EPHRAIM Ankhu,
MANASSE Senebefni Ibiaw
6 Pharaohs:
Rensenebu/ Imyrmashaw,
Antef,
Seth,
Wepwauthotep/ Sobekhotep III
„Kingson“ Khakaw/ Sewadjtew
„Kingson“ Sonb/ Ined
10 Kingdaughters:
Seneb, Satamun, …
12 Brothers &
Tribefathers
Leah's sons:
RUBEN, SIMEON, LEVI, JUDAH, ISSACHAR, ZEBULON
LEVI Pharaoh Amenemhet V,
3 of his sons became Pharaohs, his grandson became Amenemhet VI,
Rachel's sons:
JOSEPH,
BENJAMIN
BENJAMIN became
Pharaoh Amenemhet IV,
all of his 10 sons became Pharaohs, his great-grandson became Amenemhet VII
Bilhah's sons:
DAN, NAPHTALI
Zilpah's sons:
GAD, ASHER
Pharaoh
Amenemhet III
- Amenemhet's blood son died in a revolte against his father and JOSEPH and thus was not memorized
- Amenemhet's adopted son in law BENJAMIN Amenemhet IV
- Daughter Pharaoh Nofrusobek
- Daughter Nubhetepti-khered (BENJAMIN's) Amenemhet's IV wife
- Daughter Nofruptha
- Daughter Mereret (EPHRAIM's) Ankhu's wife
- Daughter Hathorhotep
- Daughter Sithathor
- “Kingdaughter” Hatshepsut
EPHRAIM
Vizier Ankhu Senwosret
*1828-1726+ BC
Co-Rulership with his father JOSEPH:
1798-1750 BC
Vizier Ankhu
Vizier Senwosret Speaker of Vizier Zamonth
Mayor of Lahun Senwosret under Vizier Chety
Vizierkingship over Egypt:
1750-1726 BC
& Wife Mereret
Pharaoh Amenemhat's III Daughter
Mother of
SHUTELAH 1 Chr 7:20
Vizier Resseneb Sonbhenaf
BERIAH 1 Chr 7:23
Vizier Iymerew Aya
Daughters:
Senebhenas
Aya
2 of his sons died in a fight against the sons of DAN & GAD:
ESER Nebankh &
ELEAD 1 Chr 7,21
Brother MANASSE
Vizier Senebefni Ibiaw
*1828-1726+ BC
also deciphered as Dedwen- or Dedu- Month Senebtefi
Thebes' Mayor, Vizier, Royal Sealer & Highpriest of Amun
Illegitimate son (1Chr7:14) of an Aramean concubine:
1. MACHIR Nehy
Legitimate sons (Jos 17, 1 Chron 7) of Egyptian mother Nebetka:
2. (AVIEZER) Pharaoh Wegaf
3. (HELEQ) Vizier Senebhenef
later
Pharaoh Sobekhotep VIII
4. (ASRIEL) name lost
5. (SHEMIDA) Pharaoh Sobekhemsaf I
6. (HEPHER) Pharaoh Khendjer
JOSEPH
Vizierking ZaMonth
Khnumhotep
Monthotep
Rulership:
1830-1750 BC
- First Shepherdking & Ruler of Foreign Lands Hekashasut = 'Hyksos'
- Archeologically evidenced
King Khnumhotep,
King Zamonth and
King Monthotep
- Father of the Land
- Father of G'ds
- Worshipped as Khnum, Month & Osiris
- Brother of the first Hebrew Pharaoh (BENJAMIN) Amenemhat IV
SHUTELAH
Vizier Resseneb
c. *1794-1714+ BC
(1 Chr 7:20)
Assistant of his Grandfather JOSEPH as Mayor of Lahun
under Vizier Khety
Co-Rulership as Vizier with his father EPHRAIM and brother BERIAH:
c. 1750-1726 BC
16th Dynasty
Vizierkingship
over Southern Egypt:
1726-1714 BC
Wife MAACHAH
Senebtisi
HUPPIM's sister and (Gen 46:21) granddaughter of BENJAMIN
"King's Daughter" of
BENJAMIN's son IR (1 Chron 7:12) Pharaoh Hor
„Lady of the House“
Former Widow of (MANASSE's) Senebefni Ibiaw's biblical illegitimate son (MACHIR 1Chr7:14) Nehy who died together with Sobekhotep III in the first war against the Canaanites in the year of JOSEPH‘s death.
Brother BERIAH
Vizier Iymeru Aya
c. *1786-1698+ BC
(1 Chr 7:23)
Co-Rulership as Vizier with his father EPHRAIM and brother SHUTELAH:
c. 1750-1726 BC
Sisters: Aya, Senebhenas
Wifes: ZatJan, Redinetes
Son: REFACH (1Chr7:25)
Vizier Neferkare Iymeru Ayamerew II
16th Dynasty Vizierking
over Southern Egypt
1714-1698 BC
EPHRAIM Vizierking
Ankhu Senwosret
13th Dynasty Vizierking
over complete Egypt:
1750-1726 BC
- Archeologically evidenced King Senwosret, King of Pharaoh Wegaf
PERESH
Haankhef
c. *1752-1658+ BC
(1 Chr 7:16)
Son of (SHUTELAH's) Resseneb's wife and former widow (MAACHAH) Senebtisi and (MANASSE's) Senebefni Ibiaw's biblically illegitimate son (MACHIR 1 Chr 7:14) Nehy who died together with Sobekhotep III in the first war against the Canaanites before JOSEPH‘s death
(PERESH) Haankhef failed in his attempt to take over the throne. He died early before his sons reached their kinghship.
He was proclaimed by his sons as
- "Royal Sealer"
- "Father of Gods"
- and as King/ as Father of "Kingsons"
& Wife Kemi
died in the second reign year of her eldest son Pharaoh Neferhotep
Mother of 2 self-called "Kingsons":
1.REKEM (1 Chr 7:16) Pharaoh Neferhotep'I’
2.ULAM (1 Chr 7:16) Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV
Cousin REFACH
Vizier Neferkare Iymeru Ayameru II
c. *1752-1646+ BC
Son and successor of Vizierking BERIAH (1 Chr 7:23) Iymeru Aya
Mother: Redinetes
Co-Rulership with father Vizierking Iymeru Aya:
1716-1698 BC
17th Dynasty Vizierking
over Southern Egypt
1698-1666 BC
Reduced to Vizier
under Pharaohking
Sobekhotep IV
1666-1646 BC
Samuqenu/ Salitis
First Canaanite Hyksos Pharaoh
1729-1710 BC:
First 15th Dynasty self announced HYKSOS = Foreign King who arose in enmity over Egypt (Exodus 1:8 in literal old hebrew)
Parallel Southern
Hebrew Shepherd Kings:
1. SHUTELA 16th Dynasty
(1 Chr 7:20) Vizierking Resseneb
2. BERIAH 16th Dynasty
(1 Chr 7:23) Vizierking Ayamerew
3. REFACH 17th Dynasty
(1 Chr 7:25) Vizierking Ayamerew II
ULAM Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV
*1720-1626+ BC
Son of PERESH/ Haankhef (1 Chr 7:16)
Husband of Hyksos Pharaoh's daughter Meris
Co-Rulership with Hyksos Pharaoh Khayan over complete Egypt:
1666-1658 BC
Stepfather of
Sobekhotep Mio =
MOSES
1. Wife MERIS
2. Wife Tjan
1. Canaanite wife
MERIS/ Mereryt:
Biblical Pharaoh's Daughter (Canaanite Hyksos Pharaoh Khayan)
Mother of Pharaoh Sobekhotep V (BN Sobekhotep Djadja) and
Haankhef Iyhkarnofrat
But first of all:
Adoptive Mother of Sobekhotep Mio =
MOSES
2. Hebrew wife Tjan:
Son Pharaoh Sobekhotep VI (BN Amenhotep)
and
Daughter Nebtiunet
She becomes later Queen Tetisheri, the wife of Pharaoh Senakhtenre Ahmose.
Brother REKEM/
Neferhotep I
REKEM (1 Chr 7:16) Pharaoh Neferhotep I
Father of:
Pharaoh Sihathor
no reign time, early death
nephew of Sobekhotep IV
Pharaohs Khayan & Sobekhotep IV
Avaris 1666-1658 BC:
Co-Rulership as Hebrew son in law together with Canaanite King Khayan over reunited Egypt until 1658 BC
Thebes 1666 BC:
Switch back from Vizierking Dynasty to Pharaohking Dynasty leading into the
downfall of the Kingdom of Hebrew Shepherd Kings until the Egyptian takeover by the Ahmosides 1627 BC
Notes and References
Allen James P., “The Speos Artemidos Inscription of Hatshepsut”, Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 16 (2002), pp.1-17, pls.1+2.)
Bietak Manfred, M.Tell el-Daba http://www.auaris.at/htmle/history_en.html. Retriever30 November 2019
Bietak, Manfred (2019). "The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analysis of Their Sacred Architecture, Part I". In Bietak, Manfred; Prell, Silvia (eds.). The Enigma of the Hyksos. Harrassowitz. pp. 47–67.
Bietak Manfred, Avaris the capital of th Hyksos -recent excavations at Tell el-Daba, London 1996 published by the British Museum
Burke, Aaron A. (2019). "Amorites in the Eastern Nile Delta: The Identity of Asiatics at Avaris during the Early Middle Kingdom". In Bietak, Manfred; Prell, Silvia (eds.). The Enigma of the Hyksos. Harrassowitz. pp. 67–91.
Curry, Andrew, “The Rulers of Foreign Lands - Was a new regional power, once thought of as a bloodthirsty invading force, actually a catalyst for ancient Egypt’s most prosperous era?” in: Archeology, a publication of the Archeological Institute of America, September/ October 2018.
Rohl David 2010 The Lords of Avaris
https://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm