Who were the 'Hyksos'?

The real Chronology of the Canaanite self-called 'Hyksos'
according to the rediscovered first and only unfalsified Strict Bible Chronology
(Leading Egyptologists' highly speculative estimations are written in brackets):

1750 BC: First war between the 13th Dynasty and the Canaanites from Assur

1729 BC
('1649 BC')
Canaanite 'Hyksos' Invasion & Enslavement of Israel in Avaris/RaAmezes, Lahun-Fayum/Pythom, Heliopolis/On and the complete Nile Delta

1666-1658 BC: Canaanite-Hebrew
Co-Rulership of Pharaohs Khayan and Sobekhotep IV over reunited Egypt

1606 BC ('1531 BC') 
The Exodus of Israel and the Expulsion of the Canaanite 'Hyksos' out of Egypt

The canaanite 'Hyksos' Dynasty over complete tributary Egypt is the 15th Dynasty:

  • Sharek/SakirHar/Salitis 1729-1710 BC
  • Bnon/BinAnu             1710-1697 BC
  • Apakhnas                1697-1686 BC

  • Khayan                  1686-1658 BC

  • Ippi/Apepi/Apophis      1658-1617 BC
  • Khamudi                 1617-1606 BC

  • Canaanite 14th Dynasty  1750-1666 BC
    over the Nile Delta


Who were the Hyksos? 

For watching Youtube documentaries linked in this work simply choose Your language as a subtitle. To make life easier for all readers in this work Wikipedia sometimes is the referred source if no special source is mentioned also when citing in quotation marks without a source to make it easier for all readers to roughly check things; In the relating Wikipedia articles, You then find the professional sources they refer on.


On this page, You find the deciding evidence for the first Canaanite Hyksos King of Egypt being the Pharaoh, who enslaved Israel, and for the Canaanite self-called 'Hyksos' Pharaohs being the Pharaohs of the Enslavement and Exodus of Israel. 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 (Solely 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 scrolls of c. 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 



The deciding evidence for Israel's enslavement by an enemy Canaanite Foreign King/ '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, 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.  


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. 


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 contents 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 an eternal dispute until the coming of the Messiah ...

All authors of the 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, and all Authors of the New Testament 
cite and refer to the Book of Jubilees 
as trustworthy, authoritarian, and seemingly 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, that part that was not thrown into the Abyss but stood under the top one Satan, called Maastema in Jubilees10, the ALMIGHTY's opponent and the 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 used by the Christians.

The Jewish Apostles and all first Jewish Followers of Yeshua (Jesus) thus evidenced strongly trusted the Book of Jubilees seemingly as inspired Scripture. 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 Paul Shaùl as a highly educated Jewish Pharisee cited the strict tradition dedicated Book of Jubilees and thus consequently must 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 a 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). And it is refuted by the Jews and Christians of Ethopia having preserved it in their Bible Canon.


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, and 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 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 in the time of the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt - in the pure biblical year 1606 BC as 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 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 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: The complete ancient Qumran
Isaiah Scroll discovered in Qumran 1945.

This 2200 years old original Old Hebrew text passage evidence of the Tanakh reveals one passage of Isaiah's prophecies generally unknown in Israel because it is omitted in the Haftarah directory and thus has never been read in a Synagogue. Checkable in every Rabbinical Bible the Aramaic translation explicitly reveals it is a hidden prophecy about the Messiah:

Second Century BC Qumran Original Tanakh Bible Text Isaiah 53




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. 
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. 

Content of the 5th-century roman translation fragments differing from the Ethiopian translation is written in bold: 

"The Canaanite King (Memkeron) kills the Egyptian one and chases after the Egyptians, but he has to withdraw, in front of the new king, back to Canaan ... 
(22 years later) the Egyptian King battles with the Canaanite one, 
while the Israelites burry their (11) Tribe Fathers (in Shechem) 

After having defeated the Egyptian King, the King of Canaan makes the plan to oppress the Israelites and executes his plan. Built Cities of these are Phitom, Remesa/Romasse, and Oon. Under the pressure, the children of Israel, who are an abdorrence to the Egyptians, multiply."

The 6th-century original Latin critical sentence is: 

"Et cogitauit rex Chanaam cogitationem pessimam ut adfligeret eos." Jubilees46,14 Ambrosiana C 73 46:12-48:5


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. 

3) Prof. Dr. James VanderKams, The Book of Jubilees, Louvain 1989.


You can listen to the full 15th century Ethiopian translation 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 an 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 wrong one. Confirming 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 the one thousand years younger 15th-century Ethiopian translation to be the correct original. To comprehend his presumption the reader has to know that VanderKam like Finkelstein is antitheistically rejecting the existence of the biblical G'd with a dogmatic faith in the outdated by science self-disproved Ramesses Time Paradigm (see Chapter Chronology); Thus he evaluates the Book of Jubilees as biased the same way as Finkelstein evaluates the Torah - both books being 200 BC evidenced Qumran Scriptures - 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 can 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 'Hyksos' Invasion.


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 Egyptian Pharaoh? 

The answer is found in the Stephanus Speech in the New Testament Act7.18. 
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."


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 instead "foreign languages" hit 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 in greek as 'Hyksos' in ancient writings of Egypt originally spoken "Hekashasut" in Egyptian. "anistemi" used intransitively like in this case does precisely mean "to rise up in enmity against".

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 did not know of 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 and fight against us and exit to the Land
(of Canaan).' 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 of 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 word "malak" for a certain Ruler of Foreign Lands: The Ruler of Assur!


"qum": Deutoronomy22:26 Psalm3:2 Psalm68:2 Isaiah14:22 Isaiah28:21 and Amos7:9  all use "qum" as 'rising up in emnity against' somebody. 


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 yet unidentified Qumran text fragments relating to Exodus1:9.10 will additionally prove the 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 Egyptian priest, 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. Science claims Egypt counted 3 to 5 million Egyptians that time. This would lead to the conclusion that only a Foreign Canaanite King instead of an Egyptian Pharao does make sense to say "more than us". The reader has to have in mind that science has - driven by false paradigms without evidence - already dismissed not only all biblical never disproved ancient writings but also all never disproved nonbiblical ancient writings confirming any biblical event as historical (see Chapter Moses). Thus Leading Egyptology neither accepts the Ipuwer Papyrus describing precisely the Santorini Eruption connected proven environmental disaster nor most described 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.

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 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 assume without any proving evidence a settlement process from Canaan over centuries excluding a high population growth of eg. 8 children per family through four plus two generations Genesis1:2.20 Genesis6:16-20 from 1821 to 1606 BC.



In his end-time prophecy for Israel Yesayah (10:24) 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,

CBJ Complete Jewish Bible 

This leads to the questions 
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? 

 Assur stroke Israel with a stick in Egypt in the Qumran Scripture's Book of Jubilees Chapter 46 Verse 6: 

"Because Makamaron (Makamaron in latin, Memkeron in ethiopian, Magron in SeferHaj1238), the King of Canaan, when he inhabited (or occupied) the land Assur, fought in the valley with the King of Egypt. 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 was King for Egypt and he was stronger than him ... And Joseph died ... And the King of Egypt went out to fight with the King of Canaan ... 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 they enslaved them by force." 

b) And WHEN did Assur raise his staff against Israel in Egypt?

Assur rose his staff against Israel in Exodus14, in 1606 BC, 123 years after their invasion of 1729 BC, when the last 'Hyksos' Pharaoh as only lifelong ruler = King of Egypt Exodus14:5.8 and 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, a 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 Hamites and instead Anti-Semites, invading enemies of 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 neutrality a second time by calling ancient Israel as like today Palestine, which translated means the land of the Philistines …

Assur/Ashur as the location of origin of the Canaanite 'Hyksos' Pharaohs is confirmed by Egyptologist Manfred Bietak's excavated evidence: 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 matches the region Assur. The in the book of Jubilees mentioned valley of the first battle before 1750 BC is likely to be the Kabhur River Valley, being the heart of Assur's lands for a Millenium. Thus the second group of Semitic 'Hyksos' 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'. In 1729 BC Mut-Ashkur (Hurrian name) is assumed by historians to be King of Assyria ... 

Artapanus a Jewish writer between the 3rd and 2nd century BC tries to clarify Manetho's descriptions of the 'Hyksos' who invaded Egypt; Artapanus says that the Arabs plundered Egypt, by this, he is transforming Manetho's saying "Some say they were Arabs." into a fact; He wants to avoid the confusion of them with the Hebrew 'Hyksos' as foreign rulers from Canaan in the 13th and 16th Dynasty and indeed the Canaanite 'Hyksos' Foreign Rulers did not come from Canaan but indeed from further away - from Assur!


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 the Scriptures did not "forget" completely the Canaanites from Assur 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 Jubilees40-46 of stability and peace for Egypt and Israel under Joseph's Family Rule in the pure biblical years 1830-1750 BC and 22 years Jubilees46 after Josephs death, the Canaanites took over the role as Semitic 'Hyksos' as Manetho correctly describes mixing and confusing them with the Hebrew Shepherd Kings of the 13th/16th/17th Dynasty. The reasons for this mixing up have to be explained at the end of this book when the reader has enough background knowledge to fully understand. To finally sum it up - once more:








The Strict Chronology of the Torah/ Old Testament upgraded by the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees reveals 1729 BC as the exact 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 (Salitis/SakirHar)
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 the egyptian historian of the 3rd century BC, is cited by Josephus: 

"G'd was ungracious to Egyptian King Timaios (Dedumose) and smote Egypt .. the enemy (Canaanite King SakirHar) 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, a Pharaoh of the end of the 13th Dynasty in the Second Intermediate Period, the in Egyptology so-called 'dark period' (see Chapter Chronology).

Queen Hatshepsut of the 18th Dynasty after the Hyksos Expulsion clearly distinguishes between the Hekashasut Hebrew Semites who settled in Avaris before the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period and the Canaanite Barbarians (self-called Hyksos) who invaded brutally the land a century later: "I have restored that which was ruins, I have raised up that which was unfinished since the HEKASHASUT (egyptologists‘ translational misleading intervention:„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 settlement in and around Avaris already from around 1820 BC on;
It 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 Semitic rulership one century before the Invasion of the Canaanite self-announced 'Hyksos'; Without any disproving evidence, he strongly rejects all ancient sources confirming the time of Israel in Egypt c. 1800-1600 BC. Bietak and several Egyptologists since half a century more and more even reject the historicity of Manetho's attested "Hyksos Invasion" and defame it without disproving evidence as corrupted. Nevertheless, leading Egyptologists like Redford and Ryholt (yet) still admit the many 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 of the Canaanite Pharaohs as Hekashasut (Hyksos) differs clearly from the partly evidenced Semitic Pharaohs before the invasion having used solely Egyptian titularies for already a complete century (Kim Ryholt 1997, page 303 & footnote 1057); This does clearly show the Canaanite invaders 1729 BC (acc. to Ryholt '1649 BC') were not the same Semites 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 (Bible + Radiocarbon Evidence: 1798-1606 BC, Egyptology: 1798-c.1530 BC); These non-existing years are the fundament of the archeological evidence of Canaanite cults allegedly solely possible   AFTER 1750 BC - the year of the first Canaanite invasion attempt and the resulting settlement of the Canaanite 14th Dynasty in the Nile Delta. This would allegedly prove that Canaanites had settled in Egypt A CENTURY BEFORE the successful Hyksos Invasion in the by themselves "highly speculative" called year ‘1649’ BC.

Instead, the ancient scriptively (Book of Jubilees & the Bible) attested year 1729 BC was the true biblical and historical year of the successful Canaanite invasion and takeover of Egypt after the Hebrew Hekashasut/ the Shepherd Kings already had lived and ruled for nearly a century in Egypt.

The reader more and more realizes now that the huge chaos and helpless guesswork of the therefore so-called "Dark Period" of Egyptian History have been caused by the invention and integration of over 75 non-evidenced and non-existing years into the Chronology of Egyptian History. And this is rooted in a subjective, dogma dependant, biased rejection of nearly all ancient - never disproved - relating and confirming ancient sources including the Bible. It is also caused by the dogmatic rejection of the possible and most plausible rotation system of 50 Pharaohs under the lifelong rulership of a four-generation Vizierkingship in three Dynasties (13/16/17) which only partly finds acceptance by a few amount of egyptologists like Rice, Hayes, Helek, and Junker (check after headline 'Ephraim and the 13th Dynasty' in Chapter Joseph). This Pharaoh rotation system of Shepherd Kings is confirmed by an overwhelming amount of archeological evidence in the Chapters Joseph and Moses.



According to Jewish beatified Anna Katharina Emmerich (1774-1824 Secrets of the Old and New Covenant, in german page 80) so-called Shepherd Kings from Mesopotamia for the first time would have immigrated and ruled over a part of Egypt around 2250 BC. Their following expulsion 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 mistaken highly speculative time estimation of the first Dynasty 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 refuted by the Bible and disproved by Archeology. 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. The Canaanites from Assur instead weren't shepherds, they were warriors. Anna Katharina Emmerich also provides an elucidating evaluation of Egyptology in her time and it's by pre-ancient errors misguided chronologization attempts up until today (1774-1824 Secrets of the Old and New Covenant, in german pages 71-72).

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 (text after the headline 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 Genisis47:6 Amenemhet III made Joseph's brothers, the tribe leaders, the King's Shepherds over all his sheep and cattle. In Genisis47:16 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 development 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 not being 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 HekaShasut ever and as the first Semitic Ruler of Foreign Lands, he became also the first Foreign King HekaShasut 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 'Hekashasut' for themselves. Heka "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 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 confirm that it was exactly 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 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 before they began to dismiss them for inventing new antibiblical theories exclusively based on excavation result interpretations 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 equated the Hyksos of the 16th/17th Dynasty as Shepherd Kings with Israel mixing them with the "Arabian" ‘Hyksos’ from "Phoenecia" of the 15th Dynasty. Thus he described the Hyksos one time (cited by Africanus and Eusebius) as Hebrew Shepherds of the 16th and 17th Dynasty and the other time (Josephus) as foreign rulers of Lower Egypt (15th Dynasty) who were expelled from Egypt by Pharao Ahmose I. It is during the Hyksos rule of the 15th Dynasty that JOSEPH is said to have ruled in Egypt according to Eusebius' quote of Manetho (Manetho 1940, 97) which is again evidence for the complete mixing and confusion of the Canaanites with the Israelites. This confusion was mirrored in Manetho 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" that these additional legendary tales cause very much confusion he tries to dissolve. This confusion is used by Leading Egyptologists to dismiss Josephus' complete citations of Manetho as textual corruption in order to make their new exclusively archeology-based hypotheses work; These completely 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 is then rejected by the antibiblical 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 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" Hekashasut and the "later" self-called Hekashasut as this work will show by evidence at the end of Chapter Moses.

The first known instance of the name HekaShasut is found in the Beni Hasan tomb of the 19th century. The only statue of a HekaShasut 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 HekaShasut now clearly as Semitic Foreign Rulers are Semitic Pharaoh names in the 13th Dynasty over complete Egypt. We will examine them deeper in Chapter Joseph.

The third known instance of HekaShasut 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 HekaShasut 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 that they came from Assur was obviously not exactly remembered or known by the Egyptians in Manetho’s time.  


The fifth known instance of HekaShasut 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 Kings in this work (Tablet at the start of Chapter Moses). 

The sixth known indication of HekaShasut 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 Bietak attributes to textual corruption without disproving evidence. According to Africanus Manetho identifies them as Hebrew Shepherd Kings. Egyptologists confirm that the Theban rulers are known to have „imitated“ the Semitic 'HekaShasut' 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. 

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 of Hebrew King Shepherds of the 16th and 17th Dynasty without distinguishing them expressively as two different peoples and 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 peoples from the near east. Manfred Bietak is strongly rejecting any difference between the „Early Hyksos“ of the 12th and 13th Dynasty before the Invasion and the „later Hyksos“ of the 15th Dynasty. Due to the strong supporting archeological evidence for historian Manetho’s documented ‚Hyksos’ Invasion Manfred Bietak thus had to invent a totally new third group of NON-Hyksos invaders of mercenaries and soldiers to reinforce his attribution of Manetho‘s facts to textual corruption (compare Manfred Bietak 2012, p.5).

Remarkable is that the archeologically evidenced strongly growing number of Semites and their influence in the Royal House in the 12th and 13th Dynasty is not mentioned at all by the oldest "sacred tablets" of the priest historians Manetho referred to; The 13th Dynasty gets only one single sentence and is mentioning solely the number of rulers. The reason for the Egyptian historical silence around the 13th Dynasty will be revealed at the end of this work (Chapter Moses).

The reader has to examine all evidence of this complete work 
until he will fully understand the history and all painful reasons 
for the 3600 years old Hyksos Controversy up until today 
regarding the question "Who were the Hyksos?" 
But it will be worth it: 
The Veil on history will be fully removed.


“The one who states his case first seems right,
 until the other comes and examines him.”

Proverbs 18:17 


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 the another implemented modern Dogma of Leading 'Biblical' Archeologist Israel Finkelstein, namely that the complete Bible is disproved by the archeological evidence of Jericho: The by science self disproved ("there is no evidence") Bible Forgers' Ramesses Time Paradigm (see Chapter Chronology), moving through Bible falsification the Exodus of Israel and the Conquest of Canaan three centuries away from the time the Bible states it happened. Thus the Bible archeologically proved claims since 3600 years that Jericho was conquered in the middle of the 16th century BC and Israel Finkelstein claims the same in his book The Bible unearthed. But with the self disproved Bible Forgers' Ramesses Time Paradigm Finkelstein successfully convinced millions of Christians that the Bible is a compendium of religious-political lies being 1000 years younger than it claims to be. This Ramesses Time Paradigm leads on the other hand to Manfred Bietak's claim "Chronology does not permit" any Israelites in Egypt in the time (1821-1606 BC) the Bible declares the Israelites had been 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 Israelites or proving evidence for Canaanites simply against all ancient scriptures redefines this growth as "Asiatic" immigration from Canaan and forbids any Hebrew connections. Egyptologists avoid the word Semites because it presents the possibility of Israelites so they strongly force and establish the misleading word Asiatics for all Semites from Semitic regions because it's more "neutral".

Fundament C

A third fundamental proof for Bietak's hypothesis the Canaanites are 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 Israelites or proving evidence for Canaanites simply presents this 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 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 You will have already realized it now: There is no proving evidence at all against the Israelites and for the Canaanites being the 'Early Hekashasut' of 1821-1729 BC before the  1729 BC Invasion of the Canaanites who called themselves Hyksos, historically confirmed by Manetho, the Book of Jubilees, and the Bible itself. And they are still archeologically evidenced and confirmed by Kim Ryholt and other leading Egyptologists.

The comprehensive comparison and confrontation of all different archeological attributes 

a) of the Semites in the Royal House of the 12th and 13th Dynasty, 

b) of the Canaanite 'Hyksos' of the 15th Dynasty & of the Canaanite wealthy part of Avaris

c) of the Semites in the huge poor part of Avaris

is able to remove the Veil from Avaris and from the new false paradigm
"All HekaShasut were one and the same people of Canaanites".


The Canaanite 'Hyksos' or "Western Asiatics" are often depicted with

1. Knee-free short skirts 
   instead of knee-covering long skirts
2. White or transversely 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 with mustache
   instead of not corner's cut full beard without mustache
5. Weaponed with flails and cudgels
   instead of compound bows and throw sticks

18th-16th century BC 

Canaanites or "West Asiatics" 15th century BC

Canaanites or "West Asiatics" 15th century BC


The 19th century BC Semites in Egypt called "Early Hyksos" are depicted in Khnumhotep's II Tomb in Beni Hasan and are precisely examined in Chapter Joseph. In clear contrast to 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 transversely 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 beard without mustache
   instead of corner's cut goatee beard or corner's cut full beard with mustache
5. Weaponed with compound bows and throw sticks    
   instead of flails and cudgels

Israel in Egypt Khnumhotep II Grave

"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 any Canaanites.

Sidenote: If You look at Joseph’s semitic (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.



JOSEPH was the first and the unique famous and popular Ruler of Foreign Lands/ Foreign King/ HekaShasut in Egyptian history. His statue is the only statue of an obvious Foreign King; "All the Egyptians were honoring the children of Israel for all of Joseph's lifetime" Jubilees46,2.
But a 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 contradicts his statement and calls them 'Canaanites'; He 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 Israeli historical influential past in Egypt. This fact and the by Leading Egyptology long ago disproved and at the same time still dogmatically defended Ramesses Time Paradigm have an essential impact on the neutrality, objectivity, and independence of Egyptology as science and explains the chaotic helpless guesswork in darkness regarding the "Dark" Second Intermediate Period of Egyptian History as the work will fully reveal in the next Chapters.

The Canaanite self-called '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. Sharek/SakirHar, in greek Salitis, was not only the biblical "Foreign King, who did not know 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 reaction. 

Picture: David Rohl & Tim Mahoney's 
         of Joseph's destroyed statue

JOSEPH's destroyed Statue: The original remains of the brutally destroyed huge statue of a Semitic highest royal official with pointing out light skin, red hair as Semitic attribute, an also biblically evidenced multicolored coat in a small pyramid tomb as sign of Egyptian KINGSHIP without remains of the body skeleton in the garden of the palace of Avaris in Amenemhet's time with twelve extra large palace pillars and twelve graves.According to Janice Kamrin (see page Joseph) he "holds a throw 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 evidence in Tim Mahoney's Exodus documentary on www.patternsofevidence.com or for free on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBZnEq1JC84.


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 leading Egyptology and Biblical Archeology 
against any Israel in Egypt 
stand and fall with the by themselves disproved 
Bible Forgers' Ramesses Time Paradigm.

The 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 Foreign Rulers 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 Egypt.



It can not be just a coincidence that the Bible reveals around 75 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 Kim Ryholt and Manfred Bietak and a lot of other egyptologists. 

The town Xios in the Nile Delta is the eldest evidence-based candidate as 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 (Jub46:6-12 readable in Chapter Joseph - The Real Dark Period) in the biblical time of c. 1750 BC shortly before Joseph's death at the end of the first war between the 13th Dynasty and the Canaanite 'Hyksos'. Its most plausible end is c. 1666 BC the reunification of Egypt under Canaanite northern 'Hyksos' Pharaoh Khayan and his Hebrew son-in-law southern Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV (see Chapter Moses) as archeologically evidenced explained in Chapter Moses.

Most plausible is 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 confirmed by a lot of contemporary archeological evidence (Ryholt 1997, pp. 251/291 & Baker 2008, p. 503). After the Canaanite 'Hyksos' Invasion of 1729 BC evidenced by Manetho's History description, the 14th Dynasty most likely proceeded as a Canaanite Vassall Kingdom under the 15th Dynasty until the time of the reunification of Egypt c. 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 are the most found seals (27) of a Nile Delta ruler; he was called YaqubHar/Yakubher. Kim Ryholt points to one scarab seal excavated in Israel which was estimated to 1750-1650 BC.

The Radiocarbon Experts (see Chapter Chronology) disproved the official timeframe of the Second Intermediate Period include 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 lead to scientific 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 ("no evidence at all") Ramesses Time Paradigm - explained in Chapter Chronology - Egyptologists put the biblical and archeologically evidenced 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 in 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 Nile Delta from Avaris while Joseph ruled together with his son over the rest of Egypt. But this is contradicted by Emmerich and Josephus who state that after father Jacob's death (in the biblical year 1804 BC) the tribe's father 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 c. 1750-1650 BC for the 14th Dynasty. 

The most plausible conclusion is the 14th Dynasty has started after the first war between the Canaanites and the 13th Dynasty shortly before the biblically evidenced year 1750 BC in the Nile Delta and ended 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.




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.



*2111-1936+ BC


& Wife SARAH
& Maid HAGAR



Pharaoh Mentuhotep II


*2011-1831+ BC




*1951-1804+ BC

& Wife LEAH

Brother ESAU

Senusret II 
Amenemhet II

Grandvizier ZaMonth KhnumHotep

*1860-1750+ BC
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


  • ZaMonth
  • KhnumHotep
  • Kethi/Chety
  • Senewosret Ankh
  • Mon(t)hotep

& Wife ASENATH, ESENUT Ahenut, Henutsen, Henut

Daughter of POTIPHERA Khnumhotep II

  • Priestess
  • Queenmother 
  • "Mother of Gods"

Mother of 10 Kingdaughters:
Seneb, ..
2 Viziers:
Senebefni Ibiaw
2 Kingsons:
Sonb, Khakau
4 Pharaohs:

Intef, Meribre,
Wepwauthotep Sobekhotep III 

12 Brothers &

Leah's sons:
Rachel's sons:
Bilhah's sons:
Zilpah's sons:

Amenemhet III 

Amenemhet's blood son died in a revolte against his father and JOSEPH

Amenemhet's III children: 

  • later Pharaoh Nofrusobek
  • BENJAMIN's Amenemhet's IV wife Nofruptha 
  • EPHRAIM's Ankhu's wife Mereret
  • Amenemhet's adopted son in law BENJAMIN Amenemhet IV

Vizier Ankhu  Senwosret

c. *1828-1728+ BC

Co-Rulership with his father
c. 1798-1750 BC

Vizier Ankhu

Vizier Senwosret Speaker of Vizier Zamonth

Mayor of Lahun Senwosret under Vizier Chety

& Wife Mereret

Senowsret's III or more probably Pharaoh Amenemhat's III Daughter

Mother of
Vizier Resseneb Sonbhenaf
BERIAH 1Chr7:23

Vizier Iymerew Aya


2 Sons died in a fight against descendants of DAN & GAD:

ESER Nebankh &

ELEAD 1Chr7,21

Vizier Senebefni Ibiaw

also deciphered as (Dedu-Month) Senebtefi

Thebes' Mayor, Vizier, Royal Sealer & Highpriest of Amun

Legitimate sons Jos17 1Chron7
of Egyptian mother: 

1. AVIEZER Pharaoh Wegaf
2. HELEQ Pharaoh Khendjer
3. ASRIEL Pharaoh Ibiaw  
4. HEPHER Vizier Senebhenef
Sobekhotep VIII
5. SHEMIDA Pharaoh Sobekhemsaf I

Illegitimate son 1Chr7,14 of an aramean concubine
6. MACHIR Nehy

Month Khnum-
hotep Monthotep 

  • KING of Egypt
  • First Shepherdking & Ruler of Foreign Lands Hekashasut = First '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

Vizier Resseneb 

c. *1800-1710+ BC


Assistance of his Grandfather
JOSEPH as Mayor of Lahun
under Vizier Chety

Co-Rulership as Vizier with his father
EPHRAIM and brother BERIAH
c. 1750-1729 BC

c. 1725-1700 BC

& Wife Senebtisi

  • Lady of the House
  • Later Widow and wife of MANASSE's/ 

  MACHIR/ Nehy

Brother BERIAH
Vizier Iymeru Aya

c. *1800-1690+ BC


Co-Rulership with brother SHUTELAH:
c. 1750-1710 BC

c. 1710-1690 BC

Sisters: Aya, Senebhenas
Wife: ZatJan
REPHA 1Chr7,25  
Vizier Neferkare Iymeru Ayamerew II
c. *1760-1650+ BC

ing Ankhu Senwosret

1750-c.1729 BC

  • Archeologically evidenced

   Senwosret King 
   of Pharaoh Wegaf


c. *1790-1700+ BC


Son of SHUTELAH's  Resseneb's widow Senebtisi and MANASSE's Senebefni Ibiaw's biblically illegitimate son MACHIR Nehy 1Chr7,14 
Claimed by his sons as 

  • "Royal Sealer"
  • "Father of Gods" & King as Father of "Kingsons" 


HUPPIM's Gen46,21 sister, granddaughter of BENJAMIN

"King's Daughter" of
BENJAMIN's son IR 1Chron7,12 Pharaoh Awibre Hor I

died early in the second reign year of her eldest son Pharaoh Neferhotep

Cousin REPHA
Vizier Neferkare Iymeru  Ayameru II 

c. *1760-1650+ BC

Son and successor of Vizierking BERIAH 1Chr7:23 Iymeru Aya

Co-Rulership with father Iymeru Aya:
c. 1710-1690 BC

c. 1690-1666 BC

Reduced to Vizier:
1666-1650 BC 

Sharek, Salitis =
First Canaanite 'Hyksos'  Pharaoh

1729 BC:
Self-appointed King of Foreign Lands = 'HYKSOS' of Egypt

Thebes Rulership:
1. SHUTELAH 1Chr7:20 Vizier Resseneb
2. BERIAH 1Chr7:23 Vizier Iymerew Aya
3. REFACH 1Chr7:25 Vizier Neferkare Iymerew Ayamerew II 

ULAM Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV

c. *1730-1656+ BC

Son of PERESH/ Haankhef 1Chr7:16

Husband of Hyksos Pharaoh's daughter Meris/Tjan

Co-Rulership with Hyksos Pharaoh Khayan over complete Egypt:
1666-1658 BC

Father of BEDAN Sobekhotep V &
Sobekhotep VI
as the last Hebrew Pharaohs and Shepherd Kings

Stepfather of
Mio Sobekhotep =


1. Wife Nubhotepi
2. Wife Meris,Tjan

1. Nubhotepi: Hebrew mother of BEDAN 1Chr7:17 Sobekhotep V

2. Meris/Tjan:

Pharaoh's Daughter of canaanite 'Hyksos' Khayan

Canaanite mother of Sobekhotep VI

Adoptive Stepmother of Mio Sobekhotep =


Brother REKEM
Pharaoh Neferhotep

3 self-called "Kingsons":

1.REKEM 1Chr7:16 Pharaoh Neferhotep
father of

2.Pharaoh Sihathor
(no reign time)
nephew of

3.ULAM 1Chr7:16 Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV

Pharaohs Khayan & Sobekhotep IV

1666-1658 BC: Co-Rulership of canaanite father and hebrew son in law over reunited Egypt

Switch back from Vizier Dynasty to Pharaoh Dynasty leading into the

Downfall of the Kingdom of Hebrew Shepherd Kings