Who were the Hyksos?


Introducing summary of the Lost History of the Hebrew and Canaanite Hyksos

1729-1606 BC: 
Chronological Overview of the Canaanite 15th Dynasty

Avaris is biblical Raamezes

Avaris excavation layers archeologically match the History of Israel in Egypt

The Bible says: A Foreign Ruler rose up against Egypt and enslaved Israel

Qumran find: 
The Book of Jubilees

Evidence ABC 
for the first Canaanite Hyksos King being the Biblical new King who enslaved Israel

Evidence A
The Canaanite Hyksos Invasion 1729 BC 
in The Book of Jubilees

Evidence B
The Foreign King or Hyksos in the Bible

Evidence C
Canaanite Assur oppressing Israel in the Bible and the Book of Jubilees

The violent Hyksos Invasion Canaanites of the 15th Dynasty are not the peaceful Hekakhasut Ensettlement Semites of the 12th Dynasty

Hekakhasut or Hyksos 
Shepherd Kings or Rulers of Foreign Lands

Bietak’s arguments for calling the peaceful ensettling Hekakhasut of 1821 BC “for convenience sake Canaanites”

Latest Avaris Excavation analysis results of Bietak 
The Diversity of the Hyksos 

Fundamental differences between the Semites of the 15th and 12th/13th Dynasty

The Egyptians were able to distinguish between Canaanites and other different Semites

The first Hekakhasut was a Ruler of Foreign Lands and a Hebrew Shepherdking: Joseph

1729-1606 BC: 
The real Dark Period of Egyptian History was also the Dark Period of Israel in Egypt


The Royal Genealogy of Israel in Egypt


The by Pharaoh Ahmose endarkened History of two totally different Semitic Hyksos rulerships over Egypt archeologically corroborated in this chapter

In 1830 BC JOSEPH (Zamonth) was enthroned by Pharaoh Senwosret III as his Grandvizier Senwosret Ankh with unique rulership power over complete Egypt to prepare Egypt for a coming seven year famine. After Senwosret’s death at the start of the famine his son Amenemhet III biblically evidenced handed over his full power to JOSEPH to let him safe Egypt. He immortalized JOSEPH in inscriptions as his „real friend“ unveiling their close trustful relationship. His former slave master POTIPHAR (Khnumhotep II) immortalized him even as „sole friend“ and his father JACOB or even JOSEPH himself as „HEKAKHASUT“ meaning King Shepherd and Foreign King. After Amenemhet’s III death Vizierking JOSEPH and his yearly rotating Pharaoh family members are called HEKAKHASUT by the Egyptians, evidenced in a three centuries later inscription of Queen Hatshepsut who distinguished them from the later Hyksos Invasion Canaanites by calling these in contrast to them BARBARIANS. After JOSEPH’s death these BARBARIANS conquer Egypt in 1729 BC and the biblical „new King who rose up against Egypt“ (this translation will be deeper examined in this chapter) the Canaanite Ruler from Assur Samuquenu immortalized himself in inscriptions as HEKAKHASUT usurping this glorious title of JOSEPH and his family Pharaohs for himself and his Canaanite successors; They are up until today identified as by ancient historian Manetho in Greek so called HYKSOS and Canaanites from a region including Assur. New Vizierking (Senwosret Ankhu) EPHRAIM son of JOSEPH had to flee from this Invasion into Southern Egypt. He took over the Southern 16th Dynasty of Thebes, identified by Manetho as HYKSOS or Shepherd Kings too and identified by ancient historians Josephus, Africanus, and Eusebius as HEBREW SHEPHERD KINGS. Same for the 17th Dynasty until Egyptian Pharaoh Ahmose, who expelled the Hyksos according to ancient priestly writings citing priest and historian Manetho. According to ten other ancient historians Ahmose is identified as Pharaoh of the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt. Nevertheless all ancient historians’ accounts are meanwhile discarded as corrupted by most Egyptologists latest after Manfred Bietak’s Avaris excavation results interpretations deeper examined and challenged in this chapter.

Who were the Hyksos?


This chapter will prove the Bible, leading ancient historians and leading actual historians right that Canaanite self called Hyksos from Assur invaded and occupied Egypt and enslaved Israel. They ruled over Egypt from the North as 15th Dynasty and expelled the Hebrew Shepherd Kings to the South where these went on ruling as 16th and 17th Dynasty.

Two different anti- and probiblical highly speculative theories about the time of Israel in Egypt missing any solid amount of evidence are dominating Biblical Archeology. And different highly speculative theories regarding the chronology of the so-called Dark Second Intermediate Period are dominating Egyptology. This following rough Chronology is not based on any new theory but on the extraordinary amount of over 100 matchings of the unmanipulated Strikt Bible Chronology with scientifically recognized contemporary archeological evidence. It appears to be the real Chronology of the 13th Dynasty and the 15th Canaanite Hyksos Dynasty. (Egyptology's highly speculative time estimations are written in brackets):

1750 BC
The first battle between the 13th Dynasty and the Canaanites from Assur (Jubilees 46:6) was first won in the beginning in the Valley of Assur but then finally lost in Egypt by the Canaanites (Amorites) who nevertheless afterwards stayed in the Nile Delta and founded the 14th Dynasty.

1729 BC
(1649 BC)
Canaanite Hyksos Invasion into Northern Egypt and ENSLAVEMENT OF ISRAEL IN RAAMEZES (Avaris), PITHOM (Lahun in Fayum), and ON (Leontopolis in Heliopolis) from the Nile Delta. This war is archeologically evidenced by Semitic contemporary war mass graves and a burned down Palace in Avaris. The royal family Clan of of the 13th Dynasty fled to Southern Thebes and went on ruling as Southern 16th Dynasty.

1666-1658 BC
Co-Rulership of 15th Dynasty Canaanite Northern Hyksos Pharaoh Khayan and his Hebrew son in law and Southern 17th Dynasty Hebrew Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV over reunited Egypt. According to ancient historian Artapanus Khayan‘s daughter MERIS is the biblical PHARAOH’S DAUGHTER WHO FINDS MOSES IN THE NILE AND LATER ADOPTS HIM. She married Pharao Khanefere Sobekhotep IV who  became therewith MOSES‘ stepfather (see Chapter Moses).

1606 BC
(1531 BC)
THE EXODUS OF ISRAEL OUT OF EGYPT and the following Expulsion of the Northern Canaanite Hyksos out of Egypt is archeologically evidenced by the abrupt abandonment of the Semitic Megacity Avaris (biblical RAAMEZES) and Lahun in Fayum (biblical PHITOM), a Semitic Slaveworkers‘ town according to Flinders Petrie. Both towns were enwalled like also Leontopolis, a district of Heliopolis (biblical ON).

The 15th Dynasty is the Northern Canaanite Hyksos Dynasty over the tributary 16th Dynasty of Southern Egypt: the Canaanites became self announced Kings of Egypt.

  • Samuqenu (greek: Salitis)   

   1729-1710 BC


  • Aper Anati (greek: Bin Anu)

   1710-1697 BC

  • Sakir Har (greek: Apakhnas) 

   1697-1686 BC

  • Khayan             

   1686-1658 BC

  • Ippi (greek: Apophis)

   1658-1617 BC

  • Khamudi (greek: Archeles) 

   1617-1606 BC


  • The ancient Turin King List gives the 15th Dynasty a duration of 108 years in a rough timeframe of around 1750-1650 BC. 
  • According to leading historical scholarship up until its post war change from a majority of believers to unbelievers (c. Haag 1956 Hurriter & Hyksos p.31) the Hyksos of the 15th Dynasty occupied Egypt around 1730 BC until Pharaoh Ahmose expelled them not too much earlier than 1580 BC. 
  • The Strict Bible Chronology reveals for the 15th Dynasty the exact duration of 123 years in the exact timeframe 1729-1606 BC. 

  • The duration of the parallel Canaanite Northern 14th Dynasty in the Nile Delta results into 1750-1666 BC.

  • The resulting duration of the parallel partly tributary Hebrew Southern 16th & 17th Dynasty is 1726-1606 BC


Picture from the Greek Aegean Sea: According to Jacobovici this Minoan Santorini Wall Painting excavated under the ashes of Santorini/ Thera (around 1610 BC) reveal a part of a map of a sea journey from Santorini into Egypt alongside the Nile to the only contemporary harbor town in the Nile Delta: Bietak excavated Minoan Wall Paintings of the end of the Second Intermediate Period in




Picture: Manfred Bietak's Avaris Excavation Layers Map

Picture: Manfred Bietak's Avaris Site Stratigraphy System

The Excavator of Avaris Leading Egyptologist Manfred Bietak was able to prove that the so-called Late Hyksos of the 15th Dynasty were Canaanites. Nevertheless he was not able to prove the same claim for the so-called Early Hyksos of the 12th/13th Dynasty, therefore he calls them „for convenience sake" Canaanites. On contrary he is delivering unintentionally the hardest archeological evidence corroborating the Strict Bible Chronology for the time of Israel in Egypt:

1. The archeological evidence in Avaris matching the Settlement of Israel in Egypt in Genesis 46 in the strictly biblical year 1821 BC

2. The archeological evidence in Avaris matching the Canaanite Foreign Ruler (greek: Hyksos) who did not acknowledge Joseph and rose up in enmity above Egypt and initiated massacres and enslaved Israel in Exodus 1:8 & Jubilees 46:14 in the strictly biblical year 1729 BC. Leading historical scholarship up until its change from a believing to an unbelieving majority in the 1960s is proven right by the time data of the Bible and the Book of Jubilees: The conquest of Egypt by the Canaanite Hyksos took place "around 1730 BC" (Haag 1956 Hurriter p. 739).

3. The archeological evidence in Avaris matching the biblical Growth of Israel into a people of over 1 million Semites in Exodus 12:37

. The archeological evidence matching the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt in Exodus 12:41 and the Expulsion of the Canaanite Hyksos (Manetho) out of Egypt both 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 11 sons and later 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 SLAVETOWN and finally its abandonment (D2/D1) in 1606 BC (conventionally 1531 BC).

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). 


1. Layer H corroborates JOSEPH'S CAREER up into Pharaoh’s palace and ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENT AND GROWTH in biblical Goshen: 

Regarding Israel‘s beginning Semitic Settlement in Avaris in the strictly biblical year 1821 BC Bietak states on 

"From the late 12th Dynasty onwards a community of Asiatics (carriers of the Syro-palestinian Middle Bronze Age culture IIA) settled there, which led to a considerable enlargement of the town (str. H)”

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 reinterpretes this growth as a peaceful gradual infiltration" (c. Bietak 2016, pp. 267–268). Bietak believes this happened at least in the beginning with the cooperation of pharaoh Senwosret III and his son Amenemhet III. Bietak calls it a local population hub mainly of people from the Levant and concludes it blossomed with the blessing of the pharaohs during the late 12th Dynasty and became more and more independent during the 13th Dynasty (c. Curry 2018, in “Archeology”). This is altogether corroborating Joseph’s biblical story and his family’s history evidenced in Chapter Joseph.

2. Layer G corroborates the later in this Chapter additionally evidenced biblical CANAANITE HYKSOS INVASION AND ENSLAVEMENT OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT


a) “Bietak’s excavations also reveal 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”). They are possibly from the time after the Hyksos Invasion 1729 BC (layers under g) and suggest to be trophies of the following attacks against Thebes revealed in Chapter Moses.

b) Semitic war mass graves of massacred Semites in the strictly biblical time of the evidenced (Jubilees 46:8 & 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 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; Nevertheless 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 (mistaken by Bietak for a plague) 1729 BC Avaris excavator Bietak observes many changes regarding his findings: 

"Of special interest is the development of settlement. From str. F onwards a tendency towards a social differentiation can be observed. Bigger houses are surrounded by smaller houses on the same plots while before in str. G an egalitarian pattern prevailed.”

Bietak’s findings reveal archeological evidence for the heavy burden of Enslavement for Israel. Their poor little mud hut buildings contrast with the big sorroundef 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 the Israelites' 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-Daba 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 [author : which is 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 its development in the time of the 15th Dynasty Bietak assesses Avaris as the largest contemporary city in the world - a megacity of over a million Semites archeologically matching the biblical growth of Israel in Egypt. Due to 75 non evidenced and non existing years in the 13th Dynasty Bietak estimates the 15th Dynasty around 75 years too late into around 1650-1530 BC. However 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 roughly prove the Strictly Biblical Chronology right which unveils the time between the Enslavement and Exodus of Israel 1729-1606 BC being also the time of the Canaanite 15th Dynasty Hyksos.

4. The radical change from Layer D/2 to D/1 archeologically corroborates 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: From layer D1 (acc. to Bietak Ahmose’s conquest of Avaris and Expulsion of the Hyksos)  on Manfred Bietak's Avaris Site Stratigraphy picture reveals that Avaris was no longer inhabited from then on. Bietak confirms on

"After the conquest of Avaris by Ahmose … the major part of the town was abandoned.”

and elsewhere he states

"The archaeological material stops abruptly
with the early 18th Dynasty … The most likely interpretation is that
Avaris was abandoned.”

This happens in the strictly biblical, radicarbon, and pottery evidenced time around 1606 BC (the 75 years too late 1531 BC in conventiinal Chronologies are deeper 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 which is 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 [author: 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” (Bietak 2016, pp. 267–268).

Who were the Hyksos? 


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 


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.  



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 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 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.





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 in 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 (SC: Pharaoh Sobekhotep III). And he killed him there and chased after the Egyptians to the gate of Ermon (SC: Heroopolis?). And he could not enter because a second new King (SC: Pharaoh Wegaf) was King for Egypt and he was stronger than him ... (SC: 22 years later) the King of Egypt (SC: Pharaoh Dedumose) moved out that he battled with the King of Canaan (SC: Pharaoh Samuquenu) in this 47th jubilee in the second year week 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 (SC: the Hebrew 16th Dynasty of Southern Egypt), we want to oppress 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 are Phitom, Remesa/ Romasse, and Oon. And they built dams and all walls, which had fallen (SC: in the battle) in the cities of Egypt. And they enslaved them by violent force …"

Jubilees 46:6-14
/ Berger
oldest latin version completed by ethiopian version

The 6th century original Latin critical deciding sentence reads: 

"Et cogitauit rex Chanaam cogitationem pessimam ut adfligeret eos."

Jubilees 46:14 
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 pages 538-539

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


(You can listen to the full 15th century Ethiopian Audio Book of Jubilees in English on

Rönsch’s translation of the Latin fragment (in cursive) Ambrosiana C 73 of the 5th century identifies the King of Canaan Memkeron as the new Ruler of Egypt who enslaves Israel. This corrects Dillmann’s misleading interpretation of the one millennium younger Ethiopian script where you find two short sentences: according to him the second sentence pronominal subject allegedly refers to the first sentence object instead of referring to the first sentence subject as the only grammatically correct and plausible option: 

"And the King of Canaan defeated the King of Egypt and closed the Gates of Egypt. - And he (Dillmann: 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 better understand his presumption the reader has to know that VanderKam holds on the outdated in this work disproved Ramesses Time Paradigm (see Chapter Chronology); Therefore he rejects the Book of Jubilees as potential source of history in the same way Finkelstein rejects the Hebrew Bible as such; they consider these ancient sources exclusively as compendia of religious political lies not permissible for being proven or corroborated by matching archeological evidence.


In contrast to Vanderkam Klaus Berger (The Book of Jubilees translation 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 of the Book of Jubilees. His confirmation is based on the Latin translation of the 5th century which is the oldest translation of the Book of Jubilees at all - if not the second eldest …

Future palaeographically analyzed yet unidentified Qumran fragments 

of fourteen 2nd century BC Books of Jubilees including 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 reexamination of yet unidentified Qumran text fragments by Qumran sources subject matter experts could prove or disprove the findings of the 5th century AD by findings of the 2nd century BC.

You can study the complete chapter 46 of the Book of Jubilees at the end of Chapter Joseph; It provides the time data integrated into the Strict Bible Chronology revealing the biblical year 1729 BC as the true year of the Canaanite Hyksos Invasion.



The second book of Moses the book of Exodus introduces in Ex 1:8

"a new King, who did not know Joseph"

How is it possible that Joseph, the savior of Egypt out of famine after eighty years of rulership over Egypt and only 21 years after his death (see Chapter Chronology) was not “known” by the biblical “new” King? 

The answer is found in the Stephanus Speech in Acts 7:18. A more precise old greek literal translation leads to the following elucidating translation:

"… until a FOREIGN (Greek: heteros) RULER (Greceanized Egyptian: Hyksos)
who did not know Joseph
ROSE UP AGAINST (Greek: anistemi) Egypt.
This one
acted with cunning against our lineage and mistreated the fathers so that they had to abandon their babies, so those did not stay alive." 
Acts 7:18

The used greek word "heteros" stresses the different nature and strangeness of something and often means foreign: For example in Acts 2:4 it is sometimes translated misleadingly (nowadays) into "other tongues" whereas Acts 2:5.6 clearly reveals that instead "foreign dialects" hits exactly the point. In time of Moses' authorship of his second book 1606 BC there was no difference in old Hebrew between the meaning of "a foreign king" and "a ruler of foreign lands" both translated into the Greceanized Egyptian „Hyksos“ in ancient writings originally spoken "Hekakhasut" in Egyptian. The word "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“ in the Hebrew verse Exodus 1:8: The Hebrew 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 Canaanite Hyksos King Samuquenu. This is an act of not only not honoring “jādá” the true first Hekakhasut or Shepherdking and Savior of Egypt out of famine: It is an act of dishonorig JOSEPH which most plausibly is meant in this text with the seemingly “not honoring”. Sowith the most accurate translation would be “And a foreign king arose in enmity who dishonored Joseph“. In any case it has at the very least to be translated as „who did not acknowledge Joseph“.

Sowith Exodus 1:9.10 becomes strikingly more plausible and self explaining as a result when the original Hebrew in Exodus 1:8 is translated literally:

"There a RULER OF FOREIGN LANDS (Hebrew: hadas malak) who DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE Joseph ROSE UP AGAINST (Hebrew: qum) 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 rise up against US, they might although like to switch to our enemies (author: the Hebrew Southern 16th Dynasty) and fight against us and exit to the Land (author: of Canaan - see Jubilees 46:13).'
Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with heavy burdens; And they built for Pharaoh Pithom and Ra’emses as supply stores."
Exodus 1:8-11 
Martin Luther Bible of 1534

The original Hebrew word hadas means generally new, but in Yeremiah 31:31, Hesekiel 11:19 and Psalm 33:3 it means primarily different, unknown, strange. In Deutoronomy 32:17 hadas even means an unknown, strange and FOREIGN religion. Yesaya 7:17 uses exactly the same Hebrew words hadas malak for a certain RULER OF FOREIGN LANDS: The Ruler of Assur! And in our case we have here 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 Deutoronomy 22:26, Psalm 3:2, Psalm 68:2, Isaiah 14:22, Isaiah 28:2.1 and Amos 7:9 You will find out they all use qum as RISING UP (IN ENMITY) AGAINST somebody. 


The Bible even demands to translate 
hadas malak as Ruler of Foreign Lands or Foreign Ruler or Hyksos 
and qum as rising up against (in enmity).


Now let us look what ancient rabbinical scriptures tell us about „a new king arose“ in Exodus 1:8 or Schemot.1.8.: The Tur HaArokh reveals „According to Ibn Ezra the way the Torah introduces the new king is proof that he did not belong to the Dynasty (author: the 13th Dynasty of Joseph) that had ruled Egypt up to that point. And Rav Hirsch V. 8. says „In no case does it signify an ordinary, lawful change of throne; חדש על is always a violent overpowering. Therefore, the old Dynasty קום על (author: the 13th Dynasty of Vizierking Joseph) seems to have been overthrown, people and land passed into other hands, a Foreign Dynasty from outside (author: the Canaanite 15th Dynasty of invasor Samuquenu) seems to have come over Mizraim (Egypt), hence also: אשר לא ידע את יוסף; Joseph would not have been unknown to another, domestic Dynasty.“ 

Further and deeper reexamination of hopefully yet unidentified Qumran text fragments relating to Exodus 1:9.10 would secondly corroborate all findings; not only 5th century related, however then even 2nd century BC related. This should be a main new research focus regarding any perhaps 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 expelled by Pharaoh Ahmose as two hundred and forty thousand. The Book of Exodus counts the number of male Israelites as over six hundred thousand. This makes far over 2 million people in total and Avaris excavator Bietak states Avaris became most likely the biggest contemporary city of the world with up to one million inhabitants. Egyptologists’ unsecure estimations are assuming between two and five million Egyptians that time. This would lead to the question if only the Foreign Canaanite King instead of an Egyptian Pharao would make sense to biblically say "Israel is many and more than us". The reader has to have in mind that leading scientists have already dismissed not only the biblical writings but also nearly all Bible relating ancient writings confirming any biblical event as historical (see Chapter Moses). Sowith Leading Egyptologists neither accept the Ipuwer Papyrus describing precisely the Santorini Eruption impact environmental disaster nor its Bible matching items. The Ipuwer Papyrus is claiming distraught "Foreigners are said to be everywhere!" which clearly reveals You could not see any Egyptians without seeing also Semitic foreigners confirming the Bible together with Book of Jubilees: „and the land was filled with them.“ Exodus 1:7

Further archeological evidence for a tremendous huge eastern Semitic population living in the Egypt 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, Tell el-Kabir, Tell Yehudi (Leontopolis), 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 is yet examined so two to three million Israelites are easily possible as a number of inhabitants in the time of the Santorini Eruption impacts on Egypt (The Ten Plagues) and Ahmose’s Hyksos Expulsion after Israel’s Exodus. Nevertheless Avaris excavator Bietak rejects any comparably increasing foreign population growth in Egypt and insists without unambiguous evidence on his hypothesis of a gradual settlement process from Canaan over generations. He strongly rejects any Semitic population growth of average seven children per family through six generations like described in Genesis 1:2.20 & 6:16-20 in the strictly biblical time 1821-1606 BC which would have lead automatically to two to three million in the time of the Exodus. The average number of children per family in Africa today is five. In Israel in the orthodox communities the average number of children per family is seven …




In his 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,
Yesayah 10:24
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 found Book of Jubilees Chapter 46 Verse 6: 

"Because Makamaron, the King of Canaan, when he inhabited (SC: occupied) the land Assur, fought in the valley with the King of Egypt (SC: 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 (SC: Wegaf) was King for Egypt and he was stronger than him ... And Joseph died ... And the King of Egypt (SC: Dedumose) went out to fight with the King of Canaan (SC: Samuquenu) … 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 (SC: lateron) they enslaved them by violant force." 

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

Assur rose his staff against Israel first in 1750 BC and 1729 BC when they invaded Egypt and second (Exodus 14) 123 years later when the last Hyksos Pharaoh as  King of Egypt (Exodus 14:5.8) and descendant of the Canaanite King from Assur is chasing after Isreal through the wilderness of Sinai to the Sea of Aqaba (see Chapter Moses) where he tries to destroy the people of Israel.

The town and land name Assur or Ashur is called "land of the sons of Shem" in old Hebrew 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 Jubilees 9:1. Noah let all of them promise with a curse not to occupy anyone other's lands according to Jubilees 9:14. Nevertheless Canaan did not finish his journey to Northwestern Africa and stayed in the land from the Libanon to the Nile 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, this time Assur, mixed up with their people and so infected Assur with his curse. Sowith 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 Avaris excavator Manfred Bietak's as part of the region of the origin of the Canaanite Hyksos; Particularly based on excavated temple architectures, he concludes from their religious practices a "spiritual home" of the Hyksos "in northernmost Syria and northern Mesopotamia" including its capital Assur. The “valley” of the first battle of Egypt against the Canaanites from Assur before 1750 BC seems most likely to be the Kabhur River Valley, the heart of Assur's lands. Therefore the second group of Semitic Hekakhasut/ Rulers of Foreign Lands in Egypt was a group of "Canaanites with from Assur left marks on their kingship" according to Bietak. This happened in the time of Egypt's second battle with the Canaanites (Jubilees 47:11) leading into ancient historian Manetho’s documented violent Hyksos Invasion of Egypt.

Historical Science confirms that the Canaanites, more precisely the Canaanite Amorites (Genesis 10,16), conquered ASSUR in the 18th century BC, usurped Assur’s throne and a “King of Canaan inhabited the land of Assur” EXACTLY as the Book of Jubilees tells us. The first Canaanite usurpator and King of ASSUR was Shamshi Adad I. A letter of the Old Assyrian Empire from Mut Bisir to Shamshi Adad was translated as: "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 around 1730 BC after his father would have allegedly fled injured after a battle to King Hammurabi and would have died there in his care according to inscriptions. 1750 BC and 1729 BC are exactly the years of the two Canaanite Hyksos Invasion wars against Egypt according to the Book of Jubilees giving sowith the most plausible background explanation: Ishme Dagan (Hebrew: Makamaron) was attacked by Pharaoh Sobekhotep III in the Khabur Valley. After defeating him he invaded Egypt and tried to take Avaris but was hindered to enter by Pharaoh Wegaf. Therefore he settled down in front of Avaris in the northern Nile Delta and founded the 14th Dynasty instead of returning to Assur. Two decades later his military chief commander manages to conquer Avaris and arises as today suboptimally biblically translated “new King who does not know Joseph”. The Canaanite Kings of the 14th Dynasty of Egypt in the Nile Delta in the North of Avaris (c. 1750-1650 BC) are by their names archeologically evidenced Amorites. One example is the name Yakbim (Burke 2019, p. 67-91). Now this seems to be the most plausible explanation of all contemporary inscriptive evidence coming together: After the Northern Egyptian Army was eliminated in the first war against the Canaanite Amorites 1750 BC and after the helping out Southern Egyptian Army of Thebes had left Avaris again in 1743 BC (see Chapter Joseph) a coup of the Canaanite Army Chief Commander Samuquenu seemingly forced King Ishme Dagan (Makamaron) to flee to his son Mut Ashkur meanwhile a Vasall King of Hammurabi the Amorite King of Babylon. Hammurabi then scriptively evidenced “took care of him” in a way that assured his rulership over Assur similar to the way he already practiced in the case of his rival Rim Sin the King of Larsa. Assyrian History scholars conclude from all their taken into account archaeological evidence that “Hammurabi ousted Ishme Dagan”.

An ancient Jewish historian of around 200 BC named Artapanus tried to clarify Manetho's descriptions of the Hyksos who invaded Egypt: He concludes that the Arabs plundered Egypt by transforming Manetho's uncertain mention "Some say they were Arabs" into a fact. As a matter of fact the Canaanite Foreign Rulers indeed did not come directly from Canaan but from another region further east - from Assur. Manetho also mentions a second assumption that the 15th Dynasty Hyksos rulers might have come from Phonecia. This statement about a Phoenician origin of the Hyksos rulers had been generally discredited until the Rasesh Shamra tablets were discovered; They imply a pantheon strikingly similar to that of the Hyksos and they reveal that the 15th Dynasty Hyksos must have been related to the Phoenicians somehow and the 15th Dynasty Canaanite Hyksos from Assur indeed had archeologically evidenced trade contacts with Phoenicia and Canaan according to Bietak.


These "two or three witnesses" according to Deutoronomy 19:15 and Matthew 18:16 lead to the conclusion that the Hyksos Kings were Canaanite Pharaos who subjugated Israel into 123 years of Enslavement. Bietak's excavations and Finkelstein's interpretations additionally corroborate the Canaanites to be the only plausible candidates for being the self-announced Hyksos of the 15th Dynasty. 

Sowith the Bible and other relating ancient writings did not "forget" completely the Canaanites from Assur being the Pharaohs, who enslaved together with the Egyptians the people of Israel and later together chased after them to the “Reed Sea” the Gulf of Aqaba: All 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 new successor was so immediately and effectively possible will be explained in Chapter Joseph.

At the end of the 80 years (Genesis 41:46-50:26, Jubilees 40-46) of stability and peace for Egypt and Israel under Joseph's and his family’s rulership in the strict biblical years 1830-1750 BC and in the 22 years (Jubilees 46) after Josephs death, the Canaanites usurped the role as Semitic Hekakhasut or Hyksos as Manetho correctly described. He only seemingly mixes and confuses them with the Hebrew Shepherd Kings of the 13th/16th/17th Dynasty as we will see later in Chapter Moses. Then the reader has enough background knowledge to fully understand the whole picture. Finally we can restated:






The Strict Chronology of the Torah/ Old Testament expanded by chronological data of the Book of Jubilees unveils 1729 BC as the exact biblical and archeologically evidenced historical year of the Canaanite Hyksos Invasion

"Pharaoh (author: Sobekhotep III in 1750 BC) moved out to battle with Makamaron (author: Ishme Dagan) the King of Canaan …
and the King of Canaan defeated the King of Egypt"

"After having defeated the Egyptian King (Rohl: Dedumose 1729 BC), the King of Canaan (Manetho: Salitis, Ryholt: Samuquenu) makes the plan to oppress the Israelites and executes his plan.
Built Cities of these are
(author: Lahun), Ra’amezes (Rohl: Avaris), and On (author: LeOntopolis). Under the pressure, the Children of Israel, who are an abdorrence to the Egyptians, multiply."

(c. Rönsch/ Dillmann Book of Jubilees, p. 237, 
Ch. 46 p. 161 Ftn 14)

The Egyptian priest and historian of the 3rd century BC Manetho is cited by Josephus: 

"G-d was ungracious to Egyptian King Timaios (Rohl: Dedumose) and smote Egypt … the enemy (Ryholt: Canaanite Hyksos) came from the east, conquered the land easily, burnt down cities, destroyed temples and initiated massacres and ENSLAVEMENT …

Timaios is Greek spoken; In Old Egyptian spoken it means Dedumose according to Rohl. He was the last Pharaoh of the 13th Dynasty (see Chapter Chronology).

Pharaoh Ahmose’s great granddaughter Queen Hatshepsut in the third generation after the Hyksos Expulsion is still able to distinguish between the "Hekakhasut", Hebrew Semites who settled in Avaris before the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period, and the "Barbarians", Canaanites who invaded violently the land a century later: 

"I have restored that which was ruins, I have raised up that which was unfinished since the HEKAKHASUT 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"
(c. Breasted 1988, Vol. 2, p. 125)

Bietak has excavated more and more archeological evidence for the Semitic ensettlement and population growth in and around Avaris already in „around 1820 BC“: 1821 BC is the strictly biblical time of Israel's arrival in Egypt.
Bietak states archeological strong indications for a „Semitic integration into the royal family“ (compare Chronology Chapter Joseph) and for Semitic rulers already one century before the upcoming Canaanite self-announced Hyksos of the 15th Dynasty; In spite of missing disproving evidence, he discards all ancient sources stating the time of Israel in Egypt is the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1800-1600); Bietak meanwhile completely discards the historicity of Manetho's attested Hyksos Invasion and defames Manetho‘s statement without disproving evidence as "corrupted". Nevertheless, leading Egyptologists like D.B. Redford and Kim Ryholt in contrast to him confirm archeological arguments for the historicity of this violent invasion: Eg. the sudden frequency of writing errors in the Hyksos inscriptions after their invasion and their sudden new self-designation as Hekakhasut (Hyksos) differs clearly from evidenced Semitic Pharaohs before the invasion who used exclusively typical Egyptian royal titularies (Ryholt 1997, p. 303 ftn. 1057); This unveils that the Canaanite invaders of 1729 BC (Ryholt: 1649 BC) are not the same Semites as the ones already having lived in Egypt for a century.

One reason for the erroneous conclusions of Bietak (Bietak 2016, pp. 267–268) is the amount of over 75 speculative not safely evidenced non existing years within the timeline of the Second Intermediate Period (according to Biblical + Radiocarbon Evidence: 1798-1606 BC, according to conventional speculations: 1798-1531 BC). These non existing years are the fundament of Bietak’s erroneous 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 Canaanites of the 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 is the fundament for alleged religious Canaanite archeological evidence in the century timely before the start of the Canaanite 15th Dynasty.

Instead of all this, the ancient scriptively (Book of Jubilees & 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 Hekakhasut or Shepherd Kings already had been living and ruling for nearly a century in Egypt as textual evidence of the Book of Jubilees will unveil 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 existing years into the Chronology of Egyptian History. This is rooted in a subjective, paradigm dependant, biased discarding of nearly all ancient - never disproven - relating and confirming sources including the Bible itself. It is also caused by the paradigmatical discarding of the possibility and plausibility of an existing rotation system of over 50 Pharaohs under the lifelong rulership of a four generation Vizierkingship within even 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 corroborated 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.



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 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 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 Khasut 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 usually being shepherds. The Canaanites from Assur invading Egypt in contrast wer not shepherds but evidenced warriors. 

Manetho (Josephus citation) explains the meaning of Hyksos in Greek by saying "Their race as a whole was called Hyksos, that is King Shepherds" for "hyk" (Egyptian "heka") in sacred language means king and "sos" (Egyptian "khasut") in common speech means shepherd or shepherds, hence the compound word Hyksos.“ Thus Manetho still remembered the original primary specific meaning of Heka Khasut in the time of the Old and Middle Kingdom. Ancient historian Eusebius’ citation of Manetho reveals that Manetho knew both translational alternatives: There Manetho calls the Hyksos „Shepherds“ AND „Foreign Kings“. More enlightening evidence regarding the Heka Khasut meaning originally not only rulers of foreign lands but originally Shepherd Kings is revealed in Chapter Joseph (passage headlined "The 13th Dynasty - a complete Hebrew Dynasty").

Now the reader is enabled to realize that the controversy about the meaning of the name Hyksos or Hekakhasut 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 Genesis 47:6 Amenemhet III made Joseph's brothers, Israel‘s twelve 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 Vizierking 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 even the entire people of Egypt. From then (1816 BC) on in Egyptian History the Pharaoh was receiving 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 confirmed by Egyptologists not being able to find a reasonable evidenced explanation for this sudden phenomenon. On the other hand Father Jacob or even Joseph (Khnumhotep III) himself in Potiphar‘s (Khnumhotep's II) tomb will turn out to be the first inscriptively evidenced Heka Khasut at all in Chapter Joseph. Joseph became in this time Israel's and Egypt's Shepherd King Hekha Khasut and as the first Semitic Ruler of Foreign Lands, he also became the first Foreign King Hekha Khasut of Egypt. The Canaanites from Assur as one century later following Foreign Rulers and self-announced Hyksos were no eastern Shepherds anymore but soldiers and later also mercenaries (compare Manfred Bietak 2012, p.5). They usurped the glorious title Heka Khasut for themselves. Heka "The High" used as Highlands or in sacred language as the Lord or King and Khasut used as Shepherds decreased to the general meaning of Foreign Kings for all Semitic Rulers of Egypt, no matter if Northern or Southern, Canaanite or Hebrew. This happened at the latest since 1666 BC which will be comprehensively ivestigated 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 egyptologist Ryholt (Ryholt 2018). The Bible and the Book of Jubilees unveil that it was as a matter of fact 123 years; The Hyksos Invasion and Israel's Enslavement in 1729 BC, 21 biblical years after JOSEPH's death, are additionally corroborated by Manetho and by the time of the evidenced Hebrew slaves list in the Brooklyn Papyrus. The Hyksos Expulsion in the time of the Ten Plagues in the biblical year 1606 BC is corroborated by Radiocarbon results of the contemporary Santorini Eruption impacts on Egypt, the Ypuwer Papyrus and Ahmose‘s Storm as already learned in Chapter Chronology. The Exodus of Israel at the time of the Expulsion of the Canaanite Hyksos is evidenced by nearly all relating ancient scriptures and by even more archeological evidence which will be investigated altogether in Chapter Moses. 

Let us summarize what modern Egyptologists think to know about the Hekakhasut or Hyksos and their time in Egypt which had been before mainly based on historian Manetho's accounts; Before does mean here before the switch from a majority of believers to unbelievers in the 1960’s (c. Haag 1956 Hyksos p.740) sowith before the majority of Egyptologists began to discard them based on the intention to develope alternative theories exclusively based on a freer interpretation of new archaeological findings in opposition to all relating ancient scriptural evidence.

Manetho was an Egyptian priest who wrote the first Book of Egyptian History in the Greek language in the third century BC in opposition to previous attempts in ancient Greece. His lost Second Book of Egyptian History is a self-self testified summary of ancient priestly reports of Egyptian history and had been preserved by citations of Josephus, Africanus, and Eusebius. As mentioned earlier Josephus quotes Manetho to reveal 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 and 17th Dynasty as „King Shepherds“ (Josephus, Africanus) or „Shepherds and Foreign Kings“ (Eusebius) from Thebes (Eusebius, Africanus). He distinguished them from five namely identified Shepherd Kings (Africanus) of the 15th Dynasty from Avaris who are assumed by Manetho to come from "Phoenecia" or „Arabia“. In contrast to Eusebius the ancient historians Josephus and Africanus concluded from Manetho’s description that the Hyksos altogether have to be identified as Israelites in spite of Manetho’s dinguishment of the 15th and 16th/17th Dynasty Hyksos. The reason for this is Josephus and Africanus were confused by an additional Pseudo Manetho Interpolation debunked by Josephus as not derived from Egyptian priestly records in contrast to all information in Manetho’s book Aegyptiaca. Nevertheless Josephus did not reckognize the interpolation as such. We will have to examine the Pseudo Manetho Interpolation and Josephus’ understandable reasons for not recognizing it as such a little later. Under the Hyksos rule of the Northern Dynasty of five by Manetho namely identified Shepherd Kings in Avaris Joseph is said to have ruled as Vizier in Egypt by historian Eusebius who confused this 15th Dynasty with „his“ 17th Dynasty. In spite of realizing that Paul and the Samaritan version of Genesis reveal 430 years from the Lord’s promise to Abraham to the Exodus (Eusebius, Chronicon, 2016 pp. 42) Eusebius speculated on a more near to 430 years soujourn in Egypt instead of the biblical 215 years (according to the Septuagint, the Book of Jubilees, Artapanus, Josephus, Paul, Africanus, and even the Masoretic Chronology). Eusebius estimated thw Exodus into the time of Amenhotep III who is named by Manetho „Achencherses“ suceeding Amenophis II (Amenhotep II). This way the confusion of the 15th Dynasty Canaanites with the Israelites by Josephus and Africanus turns out to be a reversed reflection of the two millennia later confusion of the 12th and 13th Dynasty Israelites with the Canaanites by egyptologist Bietak. This confusion is additionally mirrored in Manetho‘s Aegyptiaca unveiling ancient priestly translations of the word Hyksos on the one hand into “King Shepherds” and on the other hand into “Captive Shepherds” mirroring perfectly the History Israel in Egypt. 

Josephus does not recognize the added Pseudo Manetho Interpolation as such writing "As for the additions which Manetho has made, not from the Egyptian records, but, as he has himself admitted, from anonymous legendary tales". This interpolation of added oral antisemitic tales caused an essential confusion Josephus tried to dissolve. And the same confusion is used by Bietak finally today to discard Manetho’s Hyksos Invasion and Hyksos word translations as alleged „textual corruptions“ nor differentiating between Manetho’s citations of ancient priestly records and the interpolation breaking this rule; The intention for this is to be able to take the liberty of manifesting Manetho contradicting exclusively excavation-based interpretational hypotheses. These hypotheses paradigmatically discard any essential historicity of the Book of Exodus. When translating the word Hyksos Manetho‘s explanation that sôs in common Egyptian meant “Shepherd” or “Shepherds” is additionally confirmed by today's Egyptian word śʾsw for "Bedouins" having become in Coptic shós for "Herdsman" (c. Erman-Grapow, Wörterbuch, IV p412, 10). But as a strong indicator for Israel in Egypt it was naturally discarded by Egyptologists. In contrast they built up a strong oppositional rhetorical argumentation. It is based on an artificial dualistic paradigm that claims any development of generalization tendencies for the meaning of the word “sos” (from „hill lands shepherds“ to „hill lands foreigners“) as to be an impossible and to be discarded option. Nevertheless actually this translational development is the most plausible consequence of the getting lost differentiation between the Early (Hebrew) by Egyptians so called Hekakhasut and the Later (Canaanite) self-announced Hyksos this which will be proven right at the end of Chapter Moses. 


All in this chapter previous used citations of Manetho’s Second Book of Egyptian History by Josephus are readable in the famous Works of Josephus 14.-16. (p. 6-8). Priest and historian Manetho here attests and cites incomplete ancient priestly records. 7 pages later on page 17 Josephus examines in 26. an addition of seemingly Manetho’s „recourse to fabulous stories“ (31. p. 21) „not from the Egyptian records“ (16. p. 8). They contradict the previous already examined content of Manetho‘s Egyptian History to such an extent and with such frequency that an interpolation becomes the only plausible explanation:

  1. Manetho seemingly breaks here his previous „promise“ to „interprete the Egyptian history out of sacred writings“ and now cites „what rumors and narrations passed abroad“ in his times.
  2. Manetho seemingly breaks here his own set rule to set down the number of years of the reign of any Pharaoh and instead mentions a „fictitious“ king without any reign time.
  3. This king name does not belong to Manetho’s time period of eastern foreign rulers and shepherd kings and is placed centuries later.
  4. The departure of Manetho’s Shepherds from Egypt to Jerusalem is now taking place for a second time centuries later.
  5. The story includes two contradicting Exodus versions.
  6. Moses is here identified as an Egyptian priest who had beforehand been called „Osar-siph from Osiris“ (mixture of Osiris and Joseph)
  7. His Egyptian priestly lepers mix up with immigrated Jews as descendants of the Shepherds of Manetho’s Hyksos Expulsion in his Egyptian History.
  8. This antisemitic obvious Pseudo Manetho interpolation is similar to the three centuries later in Josephus‘ era occurring antisemitic stories of Cheremon and Lysimachus who  put biblical Joseph and Moses into the same life time.
  9. Neither the text style nor the handling of data nor the inner congruency nor anything else of this text is fitting to the rest of all other Manetho citations of ancient historians.

However if Josephus did debunk all this, why was he still convinced that a great historian like Manetho himself wrote down such an amount of self contradicting antisemitic shady chaos? The reason is unveiled by reading the complete First Book of Josephus; There Josephus had to debunk five antisemitic ancient writings. This had strong influence on his mistrust against all ancient authors mentioning antisemitic claims. This way he got used to antisemitic implausible argumentations and contradictions of ancient persons of generally respected reputation. There is apparently no interest in Egyptology to clearly separate this implausible interpolation from the plausible Egyptian History of Manetho because his ancient priestly records of „Shepherd Kings“ and „Captive Shepherds“ strongly run counter to so called minimalistic interests. Egyptology is since its father Flinders Petrie‘s death done with any historicity of the Bible and many other ancient writings. Egyptologists not anti religiously biased without political interests and with the necessary openness of their father of Egyptology towards any historical value of ancient writings including the Bible are responsible to find out in how far the contradictions and inadequacies in the antisemitic works of Cheremon and Lysimachus of Alexandria are mirroring the contradictions and inadequacies in this Pseudo Manetho so exactly that one of them is eligible for this interpolation.


Now let us take a look at the different instances of the HekaKhasut in the different Dynasties:

The very first known instance of the name Hekakhasut is found in the Beni Hasan tomb of the 19th century. The only statue of a Hekakhasut was found in Avaris and is dated into the end of the 19th century. The name Hekakhasut and the statue are archeological evidence for the striking Semitic influence on the royal rulership already at the end of the 12th Dynasty as we will examine deeper in Chapter Joseph. Bietak confirms many contemporary Semites serving as soldiers, household or temple serfs, and various other jobs for this time.

The second known instance of Hekakhasut - now clearly as Semitic Foreign Rulers -are Semitic Pharaoh names og the 13th Dynasty rulership over complete Egypt. We will examine them deeper in Chapter Joseph.

The third known instance of Hekakhasut now as a clear King's title is attested by Scarabs from the Nile Delta 14th Dynasty. Historian Manetho identified the 14th Dynasty as a Hyksos Dynasty confirmed by Leading Egyptologists.

The fourth known instances are scarabs and inscriptions confirming Hekakhasut as Northern Pharaoh title of the 15th Dynasty. Manetho confirms the 15th Dynasty consisted of Hyksos from Phoenicia. Cited by Josephus Manetho describes the violent 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 unveils the 16th Dynasty to have been a by the Canaanites claimed tributary Dynasty. He added with uncertainty "Some say they were Arabians." Phoenicia and Arabia are both countries further away from Egypt than Canaan; So 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 HekaKhasut or Hyksos is attested by scarabs of the 16th Dynasty and is also confirmed by Africanus's epitome of Manetho for the rulers of the Southern 16th Dynasty where they are identified as King Shepherds. According to Eusebius Manetho identified them as Kings of Thebes which lead to Kim Ryholts List of 16th Dynasty Kings in this work (see the chronology starting Chapter Moses). 

The sixth known indication of Hekakhasut 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 not delivering disproving evidence. Africanus identifies them as Hebrew Shepherd Kings. Egyptologists confirm that the Theban rulers are known to have „imitated“ the Semitic HekaKhasut 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 passage headlined Prince Moses’ royal adoptive family.

A by leading Egyptologists Ryholt and Redford confirmed fact is that the Semitic Pharaohs before Manetho‘s documented Hyksos Invasion have used solely Egyptian titularies instead of the title „Hyksos“ for already a century (Ryholt 1997, p. 303 & fnt. 1057) in contrast to the Canaanite self proclaimed Hyksos of the 14th & 15th Dynasty. This reveals that the solely Egyptian titles of Pharaohs of the 16th & 17th Dynasty are by no means proving evidence for being Egyptians instead of Semites …

Therefore historian Manetho is describing on the one hand violent invading Hyksos of the 15th Dynasty from Phonecia or Arabia settling in Avaris and on the other hand Shepherd Kings of the 16th and 17th Dynasty in Thebes distinguishing them guardedly as two different groups; Nevertheless Josephus and Africanus mixed up 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. Bietak (Bietak 2016, pp. 267–268) is strongly rejecting any difference between his so-called “Canaanite Early Hyksos“ of the 12th and 13th Dynasty and his so-called „Later Canaanite 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) „Hekakhasut“ and the (Canaanite Invasion’s) „Foreign Barbarians" one century after Ahmose I (James P. Allen, 2002, pp.1-17) Manfred Bietak had to invent a totally new nowhere else evidenced third group of non-Hyksos Semites who were violent invaders to make all evidence fit with his hypotheses: He calls Hatshepsut’s distinguished 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 non proven attribution of Manetho‘s facts to textual corruption (compare Manfred Bietak 2012, p.5); The Egyptian islamic government does not support any excavation projects in Egypt archeologically indicating any past territorial presence or even rulership of Israel in or even over Egypt. In so far excavation project results are not independent of the prevailing political situation in Egypt: 1967 the Six-day-war against Israel, 1973 the Yom-Kippur-War against Israel or since 1981 the growing Egyptian Islamism and its Antisemitism, all these incidents repeatedly made any archaeological deduction of Israel's presence in Egypt impossible. Avaris excavator Bietak under the constant watch of the Egyptian islamic antiquities‘ authority who have made Avaris off-limits to the public under armed supervision can be observed during the visit of Simcha Jacobovici at Bietak's excavation site in his documentary: Avaris is the most famous archeological excavation project of Egyptology and under  constant watch with mixed political, religious and scientific attention. It has been led by Bietak for over half a century now and it is his life‘s work and achievement not allowing any risking of excavation permissions. This seems to be the most plausible reason for his past change of heart from calling excavated Semites of Avaris in the huge poor mud hut area Proto „Israelites“ to calling them „for convenience sake Canaanites” (Bietak 2016, pp. 267–268) in the time of increasing interest in Avaris of Biblical Archeologists. This raises the question who’s “convenience” was primarily meant? The demanded convenience of anti Israel islamic authorities or the demanded convenience in Egyptology? A second reason that deserves more awareness is the post war fall away from faith in Egyptology; due to the switch from a majority of believers to unbelievers Bible opposing interpretations of archeological evidence increasingly earned reward and recognition to the detriment of plausible pro biblical conclusions that had become more and more devalued as per se biased.

It is remarkable that the archeologically evidenced strongly growing number of Semites and their influence in the Royal House in the 12th and 13th Dynasty is by no means mentioned in any ancient priestly "sacred tablets" historian Manetho referred to: The 13th Dynasty is mentioned by only one single sentence which solely gived the number of rulers the rest of it‘s history was obviously wiped out completely which would make no sense in case of an Egyptian Dynasty. The reason for this Egyptian historical silence around the 13th Dynasty will be completely unveiled at the end of Chapter Moses.

The reader will have to examine all evidence of this complete work until he can 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 the hard work will be worth it. The Veil on the Egyptian History of the Second Intermediate Period will be fully removed until the end of this work. Promised.



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

Proverbs 18:17 


Bietak's established modern paradigm 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 paradigm of leading "Biblical" Archeologist Israel Finkelstein, namely that the complete Bible allegedly is disproven by the archeological evidence of Jericho: The by Leading Archeologists self disproved ("There is no evidence") 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 comprehensive strict Bible data states it really happened; The Bible states since 3600 years that Jericho was conquered in the mid 16th century BC which has been  archeologically proven by Kathleen Kenyon and Finkelstein confirms Jericho's destruction in this time in his famous book “The Bible unearthed”. But by the self disproved Ramesses Time Paradigm millions of Christians are mislead successfully into the conviction the Bible would be a compendium of religious political lies of the first millennium being 1000 years younger than it states to be. This Ramesses Time Paradigm leads on the other hand additionally to Bietak's statement "Chronology does not permit" any Israelites in Egypt in 1821-1606 BC which is revealed by the unmanipulated Bible as to be the time of Israel in Egypt.

Fundament B

A second fundamental "proof" for Bietak's hypothesis the Canaanites are the "Early Hekakhasut" 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 enlightens the possibility of being Israelites so they enforced and established the word Asiatics for all Semites from Semitic regions calling this term to be more "neutral" …

Fundament C

A third fundamental proof for Bietak's hypothesis that the Canaanites would be the "Early HekaKhasut" is the biblically stated and archeologically proved idolatry of Israel in Egyptian towards Baal and also Egyptian idols. Manfred Bietak without disproving evidence against the Israelites or proving evidence for Canaanites presents Baal and Egyptian idols as proof against Israelites and for the Canaanites to be the “Early Hyksos” of Egypt.

Fundament D 

A fourth fundamental proof for Bietak's hypothesis the Canaanites are allegedly the "Early Hykos" 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 disproving evidence against Israelites or proving evidence for exclusively Canaanites simply uses it as evidence for exclusively Canaanites coming into question for these Early Semites in 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 Hekakhasut of 1821-1729 BC before the Invasion of the Canaanites (who announced themselves as Hyksos), confirmed by Manetho, the Book of Jubilees, and the Bible itself. And the Canaanite Hyksos Invasion is archeologically evidenced and confirmed by Kim Ryholt, Donald Redford, and other leading Egyptologists.

It is noticeable that whenever Bietak leads Exodus proponents with "pro-biblical" hints into a certain geographical direction, he always leads the view as far away as possible from his excavation sites (watch eg. his lecture on or his discussion with Simcha Jacobovici in or his interview with Timothy Mahoney in his documentary "The Sea Miracle Part I" on



The further on evaluated Research Article „Who were the Hyksos?“ was published by Chris Stantis July 15, 2020 on While Stantis wrote the original draft her authorship teamleader 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 Hekakhasut 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 Hekakhasut 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 Genesis 24:2) and his son Vizierking Joseph (Khety Khnumhotep III) „Hekakhasut“ - 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 Hekakhasut 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 Hekakhasut/ 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.“ … 


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 nearly established paradigm "All Hekakhasut 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

a) of the allegedly c. 175 years counting 13th Dynasty (XIII 1820-1645 BC)
b) of the allegedly c. 115 years counting 15th Dynasty (XV 1645-1530 BC)

will be able to remove the veil from Avaris and from Bietak’s nearly paradigmatically established hypothesis 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 by Bietak so-called “Late Hyksos” of the 15th Dynasty turned out to be Canaanite warriors and were buried with a huge amount of weapons and together with their killed maidservants and with sacrificed donkeys.

These so-called “late” Canaanite 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 (compare end of Chapter Joseph).

The Canaanites are often depicted with

1. Weapons: flails and cudgels instead of compound bows and throw sticks
2. knee-free short skirts instead of knee-covering long skirts
3. white or cross striped simply patterned clothing instead of lengthways striped filigree patterned multicolored clothing
4. bandaged edges cut shoulder length mushroom head haircut instead of unbandaged not edges cut neck free hair
5. 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

wearing short cross striped skirts:
Middle Kingdom 12th Dynasty Beni Hasan 
Nomarch Ameny tomb

wearing short cross striped skirts:
Middle Kingdom 12th Dynasty Beni Hasan 
Ameny & Khnumhotep I

15th century BC

15th century BC

13th century BC

14th century BC


The 12th/13th Dynasty Semites in Egypt, by Bietak called "Early Hyksos", are depicted in Khnumhotep's II Tomb in Beni Hasan and they are further on precisely examined in Chapter Joseph. In clear contrast to the Canaanites they have

1. Weapons: compound bows and throw sticks instead of flails and cudgels

2. knee-covering long skirts instead of knee-free short skirts 

3. white or lengthways striped filigree patterned multicolored clothing instead of cross striped simply patterned clothing 

4. unbandaged NOT edges cut neck free hair instead of bandaged edges cut shoulder length mushroom head haircut 

5. NOT corner's cut full beards without mustache instead of corner's cut goatee beards or corner's cut full beards with mustache

"Ye shall not cut the edge of your scalp,
neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard"

Vayikra/Leviticus 19:27 OJB

the Foreign Semites of Egypt in 1821 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


In both following reliefs You can see how clearly and precisely the Egyptians differentiated between Canaanites and other different Eastern Semites: 

In the following first Picture A of the New Kingdom You see on the right hand side a Canaanite and on the left hand side a probably a Syrian of the same region.

In the second Picture B You see two times from two different perspectives the Berlin Pedestal of 1427-1351 BC identifying and distinguishing from left to right

1. the protogreek Philistine („Ashkelon“) on the left hand side looking similar to

2. the Canaanite („Canaan“) in the middle looking distinguishable different to

3. the Isrealite („Israel“) on the right hand side

And again - now even in one and the same Picture A - You can clearly distinguish between the bandaged edges cut shoulder length mushroom head haircut and the artificial edge’s cut big beard of the Canaanite and the clearly different hairstyle and beard of the different Semite here assumed by Egyptologists as a Syrian in the first picture. 

And in the Berlin Pedestal You can distinguish between the edges cut shoulder length haircut and artificial edge’s cut small goatee beard of the Canaanite and the Philistine of Ashkalon and the different more natural look of the Israelite in the second and third picture.

Right: Canaanite 

Left: Syrian

Left to right:
1. Philistinian
2. Canaanite
3. Israelite

Second perspective:
1. Ashkelon
2. Canaan
3. Israel


At the end of Chapter Moses the history erasing and rewriting of Pharaoh Ahmose will be unveiled. This shown there picture presents Pharaoh Ahmose's I Avaris Victory Propaganda and his Egyptian reconquest of Egypt. Pharaoh allegedly defeats ALL Foreigners: black-skinned white-clothed foreigners and light-skinned lengthways striped clothed Semites (Israelites) mixed up with transversely striped clothed Semites (Canaanites). Now compare the already unveiled differences between Canaanites and Israelites with this picture. On the one hand this is archeological evidence for the indifference of Egyptian grown hate against all foreigners; Canaanites and Israelites are chaotically mixed up and their distinguishment gets lost in history. Peaceful Israelites become mixed and confused with Canaanite invaders and altogether object of Ahmose’s legendary complete Hyksos Expulsion. Now in this picture the lengthways striped clothed Israelites instead of the transversely striped clothed Canaanites are sinking in the waters of the Nile instead of the waters of the Red Sea. All this confusion was manifested in the following priestly writings and resulted into ancient historian and priest Manetho’s unveiling of the Canaanite 15th Dynasty Hyksos Invasion and Expulsion. However he was not able to enlighten the unique dark silence about the 13th Dynasty and its 1821 BC Hebrew Settlement and 1729 BC Enslavement and 1606 BC Exodus just before the alleged „Expulsion of the Hyksos“ by Pharaoh Ahmose. This further on resulted two millennia later into successful attempts of leading minimalistic egyptologists to discard as „corrupted“ Manetho’s attestations and additionally ten other ancient historians’ writings corroborating the biblical history of Israel in Egypt … 


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" Jubilees 46:2. 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 in the time of increasing conflicts between Egypt and Israel he has to contradict his statement and suddenly calls them „for convenience sake 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 or for free on


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.


It can not be just a coincidence that the Bible unveils 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 revealunveil a duration estimation difference of c. 75 years. This huge speculative variety of the duration of the 14th Dynasty is discussed in science eg. between Ryholt and Bietak 

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 Sepher Hajaschar 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. 



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 real Dark age for Egypt and even more 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 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.
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.
Before he died he ordered the Israelites to take his bones along at the time when they would leave the land of Egypt.
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.
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.
The king of Canaan conquered the king of Egypt and closed the gates of Egypt.
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.
The Egyptians considered the Israelites 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. 300 BC Hekataios of Abdera (Diodorus), 
c. 300 BC Manetho (Josephus), 
c. 200 BC Chairemon (Josephus), 
c. 100 BC Lysimachos (Josephus), 
c. 80 BC Poseidonios (Diodorus),
c. 40 AD Apion (Josephus), 
c. 0 Strabon, 
c. 100 AD Tacitus

Ancient historians Josephus, Africanus and explicitly Eusebius estimated the time of Joseph into the time of the Hyksos: „It was in their time that Joseph was … King of Egypt.“ Leading Historians and Theologians had been holding this view since 2200 years until its post war majority change from believers to unbelievers of the Biblical History of Israel in Egypt.



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

Pharaoh Senwosret III

JOSEPH Grandvizier Senwosret-Ankh Khety Khnumhotep Zamonth

*1860-1750+ BC
1830-1750 BC

The Egyptians named him 
God Sealer, Gate of Foreign Lands, Pharaoh's Real Friend, Overseer of the Fields & Hunters, Arm of Month, Mayor and Mouth of Nekhen.

His early Viziernames were

Senwosret Ankh, 
Amenemhet Ankh, 

A-Henut or Henutsen

She was the daughter of POTIPHERA named Khnumhotep II. The Egyptians called her Priestess,

Queenmother, and

Mother of Gods.

She was mother of the two Viziers
EPHRAIM named Senwosret Ankhu and
MANASSE named Senwosret Senebefni Ibiaw.
Furtheron she became mother of six Pharaohs:
Rensenebu named Imyrmashaw,

Wepwauthotep named Sobekhotep III,
Kingson Khakaw named
Kingson Sonb named Ined and 10 Kingdaughters two are evidenced called Seneb and Satamun. 

12 Brothers &

Leah's sons are called
LEVI was Pharaoh Amenemhet V. Three of his sons became Pharaohs. His grandson became Pharaoh Amenemhet VI.
Pharaoh. LEVI is the father of KHAHAT, father of AMRAM, father of


Rachel's sons were called JOSEPH and BENJAMIN.
BENJAMIN became Pharaoh Amenemhet IV. All of his ten sons became Pharaohs. His great-grandson was Pharaoh Amenemhet VII.

Bilhah's sons were called DAN and NAPHTALI.

Zilpah's sons were called GAD and ASHER.

Amenemhet III 

Amenemhet's blood son died in a revolte against his own father and JOSEPH Therfore he was not memorized. Amenemhet's adopted son in law Amenemhet IV is biblical BENJAMIN.

His daughters: Nofrusobek became Pharaoh,

Nubheteptikhered became the wife of Amenemhet IV  (BENJAMIN). His daughter Mereret became the wife of (EPHRAIM) Senwosret Ankhu.

Further  daughters are Nofruptha, Hathorhotep, Sithathor and evidenced Kingdaughter Hatshepsut.

Vizier Senwosret Ankhu 

*1828-1726+ BC

He co-ruled together with his father JOSEPH
1798-1750 BC.

He was also named
Vizier Senwosret
Speaker of Vizier Zamonth

Senwosret Mayor of Lahun  under Vizier Khety.

He ruled as Vizierking over Egypt 1750-1726 BC.

& Wife Mereret

She was Pharaoh Amenemhat's III daughter.

Furtheron she was the mother of SHUTELAH 1 Chr 7:20 named Vizier Senwosret Resseneb and
BERIAH 1 Chr 7:23
called Sonbhenaf and named Vizier Iymerew Aya.

Her daughters were called
Senebhenas and Aya.

Two of his sons died in an attack of the sons of DAN & GAD: They were called ELEAD 1 Chr 7,21 and ESER named Nebankh.

Vizier Senwosret Senebefni Ibiaw

*1828-1726+ BC

He is also deciphered as Dedwen- or Dedu Month Senebtefi.

He became
Mayor of Thebes, Vizier,
Royal Sealer and
Highpriest of Amun.

His illegitimate first son
1 Chronicles 7:14 of an Aramean concubine was called
1. MACHIR and named Nehy

His legitimate sons in
Joshua 17, 1 Chronicles 7 of an Egyptian mother called Nebetka are 

2. AVIEZER named
Pharaoh Wegaf
3. HELEQ called
Vizier Senebhenef
later named
Sobekhotep VIII
4. ASRIEL's name is lost
5. SHEMIDA named
Pharaoh Sobekhemsaf I
6. HEPHER named
Pharaoh Khendjer 

Vizierking Monthotep = (Za)Month + (Khnum)hotep

1830-1750 BC

He was the First Shepherdking & Ruler of Foreign Lands (Hekashasut = Hyksos).

He is archeologically evidenced as
King Khnumhotep,
King Zamonth and
King Monthotep.
The Egyptians named him

Father of the Land and Father of G'ds. They

worshipped him as
Month, and

He was the brother of BENJAMIN the first Hebrew Pharaoh Amenemhat IV.

Vizier Senwosret Resseneb 

*1794-1714+ BC

1 Chronicles 7:20

He was the assistant of his grandfather JOSEPH and the entitled Mayor of Lahun
under Vizier Khety.

He co-ruled as Vizier
with his father EPHRAIM
and his brother BERIAH
1750-1726 BC.

He ruled as 16th Dynasty Vizierking over Southern Egypt 1726-1714 BC.


She was HUPPIM's sister
Genesis 46:21 and granddaughter of BENJAMIN. 

Furthermore she was the evidenced King's Daughter
of BENJAMIN's son IR
1 Chron 7:12 named
Pharaoh Hor.

She was entitled as

Lady of the House“. 

She was the former widow of (MANASSE's) Senwosret Senebefni Ibiaw's biblical illegitimate son MACHIR
1 Chronicles 7:14 named Nehy who died together with Sobekhotep III in the first battle against the Canaanites in the year of JOSEPH‘s death.

Brother BERIAH
Vizier Iymeru Aya

*1786-1698+ BC

1 Chronicles 7:23

He co-ruled as Vizier together with his father EPHRAIM and his brother SHUTELAH 1750-1726 BC.

His sisters were called Aya and Senebhenas. His wifes were called ZatJan and Redinetes.

His son REFACH 1 Chronicles 7:25 was named Vizier Neferkare Iymeru and Ayamerew II.

BERIAH rules as 16th Dynasty Vizierking Ayamerew over Southern Egypt 1714-1698 BC.

EPHRAIM Vizierking
Senwosret Ankhu 

He rules as 13th Dynasty Vizierking over complete Egypt 1750-1726 BC.

He is archeologically evidenced named King Senwosret the King of Pharaoh Wegaf.


*1752-1658+ BC

1 Chronicles 7:16

He was the son of (SHUTELAH's) Resseneb's wife and former widow (MAACHAH) Senebtisi and (MANASSE's) Senwosret 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 named Haankhef failed in his attempt to take over the throne and died early before his sons' kinghship. His sons proclaimed him as Royal Sealer, Father of Gods and Father of Kingsons.

& Wife  Kemi

She died in the second reign year of her eldest son Pharaoh Neferhotep. She was the mother of two self-called Kingsons:

1.REKEM 1 Chronicles 7:16 was named Pharaoh Neferhotep I.

2.ULAM 1 Chronicles 7:16 was named Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV.

Vizier Neferkare Iymeru  or Ayameru II 

*1752-1646+ BC

He was the son and successor of Vizierking BERIAH 1 Chronicles 7:23 named 
Iymeru Aya.

His mother was called Redinetes.

He co-ruled together with his father Vizierking Iymeru Aya 1716-1698 BC.

He was 17th Dynasty Vizierking over Southern Egypt 1698-1666 BC.

Finally he was degraded to Vizier under Pharaohking Sobekhotep IV 1666-1646 BC. 

Samuqenu  (Salitis)
First Canaanite Hyksos Pharaoh

1729-1710 BC:
He was the first 15th Dynasty self announced HYKSOS = Foreign King who arose in enmity over Egypt Exodus 1:8.

Parallel Southern
Hebrew Shepherd Kings in his time were:
1. SHUTELA 16th Dynasty
1 Chronicles 7:20 named Vizierking Senwosret Resseneb
16th Dynasty
1 Chronicles 7:23 named Vizierking Iymeru Aya and Ayamerew.
17th Dynasty
1 Chronicles 7:25 named Vizierking Neferkare Iymeru and Ayamerew II. 

ULAM Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV

*1720-1626+ BC

He was the second son of PERESH 1 Chr 7:16 named Haankhef.

Furthermore he was the husband of Hyksos Pharaoh's daughter Meris.

This way he co-ruled together with Hyksos Pharaoh Khayan over complete Egypt
1666-1658 BC.

He was the stepfather of

Sobekhotep Mio =


1. Wife MERIS
2. Wife Tjan

1. His first wife was Canaanite and called 
MERIS or Mereryt. She was Biblical Pharaoh's Daughter of Canaanite Hyksos Pharaoh Khayan.

She became mother of Pharaoh Sobekhotep V (BN Sobekhotep Djadja) and Haankhef Iyhkarnofrat.

But beforehand and first of all she became the
doptive Queenmother of
crownprince Sobekhotep Mio  =


2. His Second wife was Hebrew and called Tjan:
Her son became Pharaoh Sobekhotep VI BN Amenhotep.
Her daughter Nebtiunet
became Queen Tetisheri, the wife of Pharaoh Senakhtenre Ahmose.

Brother REKEM/
Neferhotep I

REKEM 1 Chronicles 7:16 was named Pharaoh Neferhotep I. He was the father of Pharaoh Sihathor who as a nephew of Sobekhotep IV had no reign time and suffered an early death.

Pharaohs Khayan & Sobekhotep IV

1666-1658 BC:

He co-ruiled as Hebrew son in law together with Canaanite King Khayan over reunited Egypt until 1658 BC.

1666 BC was the year of the switch back from a Vizierking Dynasty to a Pharaohking Dynasty leading into the downfall of the Kingdom of Hebrew Shepherd Kings until the Egyptian takeover by the Ahmosides 1627 BC.

Pharaoh Ahmose I

Reign Years: 
1618-1581 BC 

(1562-1525 BC)

Ahmose built his temples and Pyramid with a huge Semitic slavework force. During the impacts of the Santorino mega vulcanic eruption on Egypt/ the biblical Ten Plagues Ahmose was the main pharaonic opponent of


His grandfather Pharaoh Senakhtenre Ahmose had married into the Hebrew 17th Dynasty clan. His Hebrew mother in law was (ULAM’s) Pharaoh Sobekhotep’s IV Hebrew wife Tjan who’s daughter Nebtiunet became his Hebrew wife named Queen Tetisheri. Their son is Ahmose’s father Pharaoh Sequenenre Tao who ruled 1626-1621 BC. One of his sisterwife‘s was Queen Sadjehuti. Her birthname was the Hebrew name Satibu. She was Ahmose’s aunt so his female lineage was Hebrew.

Pharaoh Ahmose’s wifes

were called 
1. Ahmose Nefertari
2. Ahmose Sitkamose
3. Ahmose Henut Tamehu
4. Kasmut
5. Thenthapi

Ahmose became father of at least eight children. His firstborn son was named Ahmose Sapair. He abruptly died as a young boy in the time around 1606 BC probably in the time of the impacts of the Santorini mega vulcano eruption on the Ten Plagues in Egypt.

Brother Pharaoh Kamose

Reign Years:
1621-1618 BC

Ahmose’s brother Pharaoh Kamose was the firstborn son of their father Sequenre Tao. He died in a battle against the Canaanite Northern Hyksos King Apophis.

Canaanite Hyksos King of Egypt Khamudi

Reign Years:
1617-1606 BC

Canaanite Hyksos Pharaoh Khamudi in greek called Archeles is the biblical King of Egypt: During the time of Israel’s flight through the desert of Sinai and the biblical Sea Miracle Khamudi is the pharaonic opponent of 


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 (2016). “The Egyptian community in Avaris during the Hyksos period”. Ägypten und Levante/ Egypt and the Levant. pp. 263–274. doi:10.1553/AEundL26s263. JSTOR 44243953.

Bietak Manfred, M.Tell el-Daba 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.

Haag Herbert, Bibel-Lexikon, Einsiedeln 1956.

Rohl David 2010 The Lords of Avaris

Berger Klaus, The Book of Jubilees, Gütersloh 1981 

Bohak, Gideon (1996). Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis. Atlanta: Scholars Press

Emmerick Anna Katharina, Secrets of the Old and New Covenant, Kisslegg-Immenried 2018.

Emmerick Anna Katharina, The life of Holy Virgin Mary, Kisslegg-Immenried 2018.

Emmerick Anna Katharina 1820, The Life of Jesus Christ Volume 3, Kisslegg-Immenried 2018.

Grajetzki Wolfram, Court Officials of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, 2009 London, pp. 136-138, 160-161, 36, pl.3.

Haag Herbert, Bibel-Lexikon, Einsiedeln 1956.

Liebi Roger, Chronology of the Old Testament, Düsseldorf 2016.

Liebi Roger, Chronology of the Old Testament, Düsseldorf 2016.

Rohl, David M., Exodus: Myth or History? - St. Louis Park, MN: Thinking Man Media. [2015]

Ryholt Kim, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800-1550 BC, Copenhagen 1997 (Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications. Vol. 20).

Berger Klaus, The Book of Jubilees, Gütersloh 1981 

Emmerick Anna Katharina, Secrets of the Old and New Covenant, Kisslegg-Immenried 2018.

Emmerick Anna Katharina, The life of Holy Virgin Mary, Kisslegg-Immenried 2018.

Emmerick Anna Katharina 1820, The Life of Jesus Christ Volume 3, Kisslegg-Immenried 2018.

Liebi Roger, Chronology of the Old Testament, Düsseldorf 2016.

Rönsch Herrmann, Dillmann August, The Book of Jubilees - Translation of the 15th century Ethiopian and 6th century Latin version, Leipzig 1874.

Ryholt Kim, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800-1550 BC, Copenhagen 1997 (Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications. Vol. 20).

VanderKams James, The Book of Jubilees, Louvain 1989.