Hyskos Kilmon

Jonathan Bailey wrote:

> Well, since nobody liked my post about doublets in paleo-Hebrew inscriptions
> (probably the only Hebrew language post that I wrote in quite some time), I thought I
> would join in on this off-topic discussion.
>
> Could it be that the Hebrews were not the Hyskos? Perhaps the Pharaoh that made
> Joseph ruler was a Hyskos king who was expelled and was replaced by Mitsraimite
> Egyptian Pharaoh who then began to oppress all of the semitic peoples that had been
> invited down by Joseph's friendly patron. The Hebrews, being one of the wealthiest
> and most populous of the semitic groups in the area thanks to Joseph, were probably
> not interested in leaving until well after the Hyskos expulsion as their fortunes
> continued to wane and their social situation took a few turns for the worse.

I think that it is possible that (assuming an historical) Joseph was vizier under
a Semitic (but not necessarily Hebrew) Hyksos Pharoah. The chronology
of the Joseph story would appear to dictate Aussare Apepi. It is interesting
(as long as we are speculating for fun) that a contemporary dynastic clan chieftain
is "Yakobam." In this scenario, the expulsion of the Hyksos would not be the
historical foundation for the Exodus but instead set the stage for it. It
would be understandable why the returning Egyptian rule would not be
sympathetic to the Hebrew presence that developed under the Hyksos.
Given time for the dust of reformation to settle, the Tuthmosids may have
set their plate for retribution against the remaining "friends of the Hyksos"
Hebrews. Since the Biblical account places the Exoodus during the time
of Thutmosis the Great, some have speculated that none other than
Hatshepsut was "Pharoah's daughter." Moses is half of an Egyptian name
that seems to conform to the 18th Dynasty. This is the stuff of which
novels are written.

I do think the attribution of whatever lies behind the Exodus to the time
of Ramses II has no foundation other than the Hyksos capital of
Avaris having been renamed after Ramses by the time the story was set
to writing....the same type of anachronism as Abraham's "Ur of the
Chaldees."

> Now I am not using this scenario to support a humanistic 13th century dating for the
> Exodus. I just also notice that Dr. Mattfield is incorrect in asserting a 1446+ masoretic
> date for the Exodus. 1Ki 6:1 is not talking about 480 years from Solomon to the
> entering in of, or conquering of Canaan. It is stating 480 years from the exiting of
> Egypt to the building of the temple. Therefore, wandering, Joshua, etc. are not taken
> into account. So we have Exodus at 1446, wandering until 1406, etc.

That appears to have the captivity under Tuthmosis III (the Great) and the Exodus
under Amenhotep II

> So a 15th century Exodus works well with a 16th century Hyskos expulsion according
> to the scenario I painted above. Now I am not at all versed in really any area of
> Egyptology, especially chronology, so would appreciate any criticisms of the idea that
> one may have. I am also looking for introductions to the field of chronology in general,
> particularly Egyptian chronology, that have been produced by unclouded scientific
> minds.

If Apepi was the Hyksos Pharaoh of Joseph, this would place Joseph around 1610ish.
Conventional dating places the expulsion of the Hyksos by Amoses in the 1540ish
range so if there was a Hebrew vizier under Apepi, I can see Thutmosis I being a
Pharaoh "who knew not Joseph."

> To illustrate what I mean by unclouded, let me give 2 examples. I was talking about
> this theme with a friend of mine who is up on his Egyptian history and he says the
> Exodus must have been after the 13th century because we have Egyptian records of
> 2 egyptian cities cities being built by Hebrews in the 13th century. Now he overlooked
> the possibility that not all the Hebrews left in the Exodus. This is a typical biblical
> pattern. Not all the Hebrews warded off the angel of death with blood on the door. Not
> all the Hebrews left exile in Babylon. Also, he did not conceive of the possibility that
> some (if not most) of the Hebrews got scared and went back to Egypt. Also a biblical
> theme. Check Jeremiah. Anyway, I am trying to find histories and chronological data
> by people who know that if you find an ear of corn in a field it means you found a field
> with an ear of corn in it, not necessarily a corn field. Such understanding seems to
> escape most people, it seems.

The record of Hebrews building "Per-Ramses" could be because that was the name
of the city to a scribe that copied the text, not the name of the city (Avaris) during
the actual captivity. Otherwise there is nothing to indicate Ramses was the pharaoh
of Moses.

> "If there are many wisemen in a city, this means that the city will soon fall."
> Babylonian proverb

We may never be able to get to the bottom of this to the satisfaction of the
archaeological/historical-critical method, but it is fun to play with the
historical context and speculate.

Jack

--
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
jkilmon at historian.net

http://www.historian.net

sharing a meal for free.
http://www.thehungersite.com/