Who were the Hyksos? 

THE BIBLE SAYS 
A FOREIGN RULER AROSE IN ENMITY OVER EGYPT 
AND ENSLAVED ISRAEL

In this chapter, You find the deciding evidence revealing the first Canaanite Hyksos King of Egypt being the Pharaoh, who enslaved Israel and the last Canaanite self-called Hyksos Pharaoh being the King of Egypt of the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt. It is the fundament for the integration of three controversial evidence-based perspectives - Finkelstein/ Bietak (Canaanite Perspective Evidence), Rohl/ Mahoney (Hebrew Perspective Evidence), and Dr. Liebi (Pure Biblical Perspective Evidence) - into one clarified lucid historical truth of the Second Intermediate Period of Egyptian History. 

But beforehand it is necessary to learn to know a forgotten key source of evidence - the Book of the Division of Times called the Book of Jubilees - the oldest evidenced fragments of 200 BC were found in Qumran:

THE QUMRAN FIND 
THE BOOK OF JUBILEES 

The deciding evidence for Israel's enslavement by an enemy Canaanite Foreign King self-called 'Hyksos' in this Chapter has been discovered in the Book of Jubilees - originally called the "Book of Divisions of the Times" - and in the Bible itself. The Book of Jubilees is also sometimes called The Little Genesis. It is a textual comprehensive chronology of the first two books of Moses from the beginning of time until Israel's arrival at the Holy Mountain Horeb. It contains many additional background details not changing but confirming, complementing, and first of all, more precisely chronologizing the biblical story. Fragments of at least 14 different Books of Jubilees were found in the Caves of Qumran, thus it belonged to the most read books of the Qumran Essenians 200 BC. The Essenians did not only live in an isolated community near Qumran, but they also lived near small towns like Nazareth and most strikingly in their own quarter with their own gate in Jerusalem, one contemporary metropolis of the Roman world empire thus their entire scriptures were an easily accessible cultural property of the whole people of Israel in the Roman Empire, visiting Jerusalem three times a year as far as possible.  

FOR OUR ELDER BROTHERS THE JEWISH G-D FEARING: 
THE BOOK OF JUBILEES

The Book of Jubilees is a source of the famous Jewish liturgical script Piyyut ("Elleh Ezkerah"), which was recited on Yom Kippur when it mentioned that Joseph was sold by his brothers on Yom Kippur. It also found its later echo in the Midrasch Tadsche and Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer and Genesis Rabbah/ Rabati. Nevertheless today rabbinical officials are convinced, it only was really respected and used by the ancient Christian or Messianic Jews of Israel, the first followers of Yeshua as their Mashiach who called themselves the "Followers of the Way".

In Israel, DNA-Analysis results have proven 2020
that many scrolls were not written in Qumran but outside
so that the Qumran scrolls represent "a cultural matrix of
the greek-roman Judaea and their Jewish belief of the second century BC". 

In the 3rd to 2nd century BC, the first Tanakh canonizing attempt was made by the Hellenistic Jewish elite in Alexandria Egypt. They naturally did not include the most anti-pagan and thus anti-Hellenistic Scripture into their Septuagint: First, because it attacked dangerously their Hellenistic lifestyle, and second because it is the only scripture claiming to be completely and directly dictated by an angel, the Angel of the Lord, to Moses who wrote it. Claims like these will be controversially discussed until the end of time between stronger and weaker believers like all parts of the Holy Scriptures particularly challenging the faith eg. the gigantic division of the sea into a dry path between huge standing wave walls. After the 2nd century AD, the Book of Jubilees only remained to be an official Holy Scripture in the Tanakh of the Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and in the Bible of the Ethiopian Christians, who were originally Jews (Acts8:27) same as in Israel. Thus for both, Jews and Christians, it has been belonging from the very beginning up until today to the Holy Scriptures in Ethiopia. There is no evidence for conflicts between Jews and Early Christian Jews in Ethiopia like in Israel and Minor Asia in the first centuries. This explains, why it was neither dismissed by the Jews nor later by the Christians of Ethiopia as it happened at that time first in Israel and later in the Roman Empire. 

FOR THE CHRISTIANS: 

THE BOOK OF JUBILEES

Yeshua (Jesus) and his disciples were living at least three times a year and at least for one week in or near Jerusalem archeologically evidenced most likely in the Essenian quarter and homes. The Essenians are the only Jewish religious group not criticized by Jesus but they were also the only group not mentioned explicitly in spite of many strong archeological and ancient literal indications for his family clan and disciples for an essential part belonging to the Essenians. The Book of Jubilees is cited in the Script of Damascus which confirms that it was seen to an essential extent as Holy Scripture at least from the 3rd century before Christ until the 2nd century after Christ. In the time of Yeshua Jesus, the Jewish Canon of the Holy Scriptures was still in flex and still developing. 

Holy Stephanos, a greek Jew and the first Christian martyr refers in Acts7:16;7:2 to the Book of Jubilees Chapter 46 and its Chronicle Jubilees1890: In his speech before his martyrdom, he for example refers to the burial of Joseph's 11 brothers, the Patriarchs, and to the Almighty's first appearance to Abraham in Mesopotamia. According to Genesis46:27 seventy descendants of Israel arrived in 1821 BC in Egypt. This number excludes five mentioned descendants Acts7:14 in the Stephanus speech; These died early without descendants in Egypt (the reason is explained in AK Emmerick, Secrets of the Old and New Covenant, german p. 104), they were Gad's son Eri Genesis46:16 and Dan's sons Samon, Audi, Jaka and Salomon, listed in the  Book of Jubilees 44:20 footnote d) and Jubilees44:29 (Klaus Berger's translation). The speech and dispute is strong biblical evidence for the Sadducees as adversaries of the words in the by Jesus and his followers cited and trusted Book of Jubilees and of the Word in the Tanakh - Sadducees only accepted the Torah - including the belief in life after death, the resurrection, and the messianic prophecies. Stephanus reveals in his speech their falseness and wickedness and is stoned by the Sadducees in the complicity of opposing Pharisees like Shaul (Paul).

Side Note: The author witnessed in 2018 the result of a dispute between a messianic and an orthodox Jewish believer about "Stephanus evidenced not knowing the scriptures"; But in this case, neither the messianic nor the orthodox Jewish believer knew the content of the Book of Jubilees thus the messianic one was convinced by the orthodox one at the end and afterward taught the results excited in his bible study group; Thus Stephanus' biblical dispute and including mutual accusations seem to remain a dispute until the coming of the Messiah ...

Nearly all authors of the Second or New Testament refer to the Book of Jubilees: Jacob Jacob2:23/Jubilees30, Peter 1Peter3:19/Jubilees10, Judas Judas5&6, Paul Galatians3:17/JubileesChronic, Marc, Mathew, Luke Acts17:26/Jubilees8-11 and John Revelation14:6;16:5/Jubilees2,2. 

Jesus himself, his disciples, nearly all authors of the Second or New Testament 
cite and refer to the Book of Jubilees 
as trustworthy, authoritarian, and maybe even holy scripture, 
at least evidenced well known and trusted 
by the disciples of Jesus in Israel.

Even Jesus himself (Matthew25:41/Jubilees5.10) confirms the authority of the Book of Jubilees identifying BaalZebul, Satan, the Devil as the "ruler of the impure ghosts". These ghosts are identified in Jubilees5 as the ghosts of the killed children of the fallen angels, the Nephilim. It was that part which was not thrown into the Abyss but stood under the top one Satan - called Maastema in Jubilees10 - the ALMIGHTY's opponent and highest Demon. Jesus also cites the Law of Compensatory Justice on the Heavenly Boards in Matthew26:52/Jubilees4 saying "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword". In Jubilees4 this law's practical example is Cain, who killed Abel with a stone and thus was killed the same way by a falling stone in his own house. For more evidence simply read The Book of Jubilees, Dillmann, Rönsch, 1874, pages 417-422. The Book of Jubilees also was in high regard with the old Church Fathers; For example, Epiphanios of Salamis cited essential parts of it in one of his works. Nevertheless, the book did not make it into the official biblical canon of the Orthodox or Roman Church after it was omitted in the Jewish Canonization process and because it was already missing in the Greek Pentateuch of Alexandria the Old Testament used by the Christians.

The Jewish Apostles and all first Jewish Followers of Yeshua Jesus thus evidenced strongly trusted the Book of Jubilees. Jewish ancient writings confirm that the first Christians occupied it in the eyes of the Jews for their messianic message, one more reason for the Jewish officials to dismiss it later in canonical discussions. Even Shaùl (Paul) as a highly educated Jewish Pharisee cited the strict tradition dedicated Book of Jubilees and thus consequently could have included them in his mind saying "All Scripture is G'D-breathed and is valuable for teaching the truth ..". In the later centuries, the 'Messianic' or 'Christian' Jews tragically did get ousted and lost in history and the Judaistic developing scripture canon became additionally to the Hellenistic Pentateuch one of the following authorities for the selection of the Old Testament Canon for the Christians especially for the Protestants 1500 years later. Thus nearly all Christians dismissed it also out of their developing canon. Finally, nearly all Christians and Jews are harmonically convinced today, that it never was seen as a credible script with authority or even as holy scripture in the time of the Second Temple, which is refuted by the Qumran Script of Damascus: A Quote of the Book of Jubilees Jub16 in the Script of Damascus CD16,3 shows, that it was also recognized as canonical (compare Klaus Berger, Book of Jubilees, p.295). It is also refuted by the Jews and Christians in Ethiopia having preserved it in their Bible Canon up until today.

FOR BELIEVING ARCHEOLOGISTS:
THE BOOK OF JUBILEES 

For Believers in the Tanakh/ Old Testament as a more or less reliable History Book who are archeologists or any other scientists, it is important to examine and realize the similarities of the Bible "disproving" rhetoric and argumentation as unproven antibiblical rhetoric and argumentation, with the paradigms against the historical value of the Book of Jubilees; As soon as You have realized the parallel similarities You have to honestly ask yourself if either, in fact, religious reasons or really your neutral observations do forbid to trust any word in the Book of Jubilees as a book of history. Two important unrefutable facts are that both sources oldest archeological evidence is from around 200 BC in Qumran and that both sources clearly claim to have been written by Moses at Mount Horeb 1400 years earlier in the time of the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt - in the pure biblical year 1606 BC, proven in Chapter Chronology. 

Important Sidenote: It’s not the task of the author to prove or disprove which Jewish or Christian confession includes the correct or full amount of the Holy Scriptures in their Tanakh or Old Testament Canonization. The task of this work is to check archeological matchings with what the Bible really says WHEN what happened supported by all relating ancient scriptures and thus also the Book of Jubilees. At the end of this work, the reader is enabled to realize if the Bible (and also the Book of Jubilees) is a reliable archeologically confirmed History Book that never has been disproved in any way - or not - regarding the time of Israel in Egypt.

THE VIOLENT HYKSOS INVASION CANAANITES IN 1729 BC 
ARE NOT  
 THE PEACEFUL HEKAKHASUT SETTLEMENT SEMITES OF 1821 BC

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
Pithom (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.

HEKAKHASUT OR HYKSOS

SHEPHERD KINGS OR RULERS OF FOREIGN LANDS

According to Jewish beatified Anna Katharina Emmerich (1821: Secrets of the Old and New Covenant, in german page 80 and The life of Holy Virgin Mary, in german page 385) Eastern "Foreign Kings of Shepherd Peoples" in a nutshell Shepherd Kings from the caucasian region north of Mesopotamia would have immigrated into Egypt and ruled over a part of Egypt around the strictly biblical year 2250 BC. Their later expulsion would have been initiated by an Egyptian King. The 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. 

THE PSEUDO MANETHO INTERPOLATION 

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.

THE HEKAKHASUT OF THE 12TH TO 17TH DYNASTY 

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: https://youtu.be/DqLsYonjvRY. 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 FIRST HEKAKHASUT
WAS A HEBREW SHEPHERD KING AND A UNIQUE GLORIOUS RULER OF FOREIGN LANDS
- JOSEPH -

THE CANAANITE 14TH DYNASTY

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.