posted 03 April 2005 05:11 PM            

The Hiksos were sometime anterior to the Jews, but only by a few generations.
The article you post mix several things together and it is difficult to get something straight from it, but following your line, I'd said that it is possible that the legend of the Jews coming out of Egypt and going back to Palestina (the legend of Moses) can be related to an exodus of the descendant of the Hiksos getting out of Egypt after they were defeated and enslaved by the Upper Nile Pharaons of the New Empire. When they finally managed to scape, the led back the way the come: to Palestina.
This movement is an important part of the myths and legends of Jewish culture.

posted 03 April 2005 09:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jluis:

The article you post mix several things together and it is difficult to get something straight from it, but following your line, I'd said that it is possible that the legend of the Jews coming out of Egypt and going back to Palestina (the legend of Moses) can be related to an exodus of the descendant of the Hiksos getting out of Egypt after they were defeated and enslaved by the Upper Nile Pharaons of the New Empire. When they finally managed to scape, the led back the way the come: to Palestina.
This movement is an important part of the myths and legends of Jewish culture.

---

My question of the timeframe provided for the appearance of the supposed "semitic Aryan-Hyksos" in the Levantine territory under the new "Isrealite" identity was not accidental. This timeframe is important to determine whether what you stated above is plausible.

When making connections such as these, the available timeframe for each situation has to carefully be taken into consideration. That said, the problem with associating the exodus with the Hyksos expulsion, is that the Hyksos rule had to have ended by the beginning of the 18th dynasty, needless to say for which, the timeframe is placed in the mid 16th century B.C.

Given the available evidence of the existence of 'Isreal', which doesn't happen until the timeframe of the 13th century B.C., the timeframe between the expulsion of the Hyksos by the 16th century and the earliest record of the existence of 'Isreal', corresponds to a post-Exodus period of over 300 years. Within this period, 'Isreal' doesn't appear in any historical record!

quote:

---

jluis:
So to say, the Hiksos were not the Jews, but it is possible that the Jews were (part of) the Hiksos

---

Could be, but as you can see the timeframe of the Hyksos expulsion poses some problems for the settlement of the "Jews" in the Levant, under their new 'Isrealite' identity. Given that this is the case, what evidence would connect the Hyksos to these people who later on settled in the Levant?

posted 04 April 2005 04:17 PM            

I reckon that the time gap between the defeat (not expulsion) of the Hiksos and the first mention of Hebrew/Israel in the Egyptian cronicles is of some generations. You mention 300 years. That is about 6 life-spans (say 50 years is the life of an "elder", the ones who maintain traditions and historical knowledge). It is time enough to expect a change in national identity but not too much to make the connection impossible.

About the problems posed by this in the settlement of the Jews/Hebrews in Levant, I should mention here that there is a theory that says that the Hebrews did not come to Levant as a already formed nation, with culture, tradition, lenguage, religion and so on. This theory, called the "Habiru" theory, states that the Hebrews formed as a nation once they were inside Levant. Moreover, posses that they were not a single group in origin, but were created when groups of nomads out of the control of the Palaces of Levant managed to overcome the cities of Palestina (some of them at least) and allied with part of the population to create a new nation, later known as Hebrew.

The name habiru appears in old texts of the Canaan cities meaning literally "bandits" or "rebels" and designed the nomads and the fugitives living in the hilly country far from the coast of Canaan -that is, the future Israel and Juda- and fighting against the domination of the kings of these cities. What made them able to overcome the organised armies of the Canaan cities?

Maybe just their own initiative and the support of fugitives from these very cities. But it is a tentation to link it with the coming of one group of exiled descendants of the Hiksos, with memories and expertise of how to deal and even govern a powerful nation as Egypt and memories of their ancient origin in Levant. Remember that Moses was, according to legend, "a prince of Egypt" who was denied his status because of his origin, the son of a "foreign" and non-noble woman.

And remember too that the monoteistic religion of the Jews has one precedent in Egypt: the monoteistic cult to Aton (the solar disc), impossed by Akhenaton, the last Pharaon of the dynasty that expelled the Hiksos. According to Egyptian history, the exodus took place after the wars that restore the old religion and the persecution of the believers of Aton (the only god).

If this is true, the Pharaon of the Exodus was one of the sons of Ramses II, much probably Merneptah. And the time gap then is only two generations.

The gap is narrowed and the history takes a new meaning: the Jews were the result of the alliance between an elite with experience of government and a monoteistic religion (the descendant of the Hiksos) and the nomads and other non-asimilated peoples living in the hills, out of the power of the Canaan cities.

posted 04 April 2005 04:28 PM            

(this one is a collection of texts, ancient and recent -including Flavius Josephus himself- on the connexion between Hiksos and Hebrews)

Here one definition of the term:
Habiru
(sometimes spelled 'Apiru) An Akkadian term denoting persons or groups who were social and political outlaws from established society; existing in the ancient Middle East in the second and first millennia B.C.E. they appear as slaves, merchants, mercenary soldiers, bandits, and outlaws; some scholars link the term to the word Hebrew.
http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/GLOSSARY/H.HTM

posted 04 April 2005 05:12 PM            

quote:

---

Here go some links to the Habiru theory for the origin of Jews.
http://www.ainsof.com/jewish.htm

---

posted 04 April 2005 07:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jluis:
Here go some links to the Habiru theory for the origin of Jews.
http://www.ainsof.com/jewish.htm

---

I know see where you got your antiJosephus rhetoric from?

Anyway the article makes 3 extremely important flaws.
1. Overlooking the meticulous genealogy of the Jewish people. The Jews did not play with their genealogies. For that article to whole water, one would have to selectively write off, what part of the genealogies were fictitious and which part was true. Now that would be creating one's own history.

2. Many experts contend with the fact as to when the 5 books of Moses were written. But irregardless of that, Moses came from the tribe of Levi. Why would Moses willingly transfered the Leadership of the Tribes from the Tribe of Levi to the Tribe of Judah? Even with the development of the so called "Myth", as a basis to form the nation, why would the early stories profess the superiority of Judah while Moses was of Levi?

posted 04 April 2005 08:32 PM            

quote:

---

The Asiatics, called the Amu, Seteyu, Hek Khasu (Manetho's Hyksos), came into Egypt as prisoners or as indentured servants because Egypt offered them opportunities. As their numbers increased they began to insinuate themselves into various positions of power. Ipuwer's complaints about the presence of the Red Ones in Egypt provides a cunning image of the changes taking place. The Red People, the coarse nomads, consolidated their gains and opened Egypt to more and more migrations from the Mediterranean region.

---

--The Heq Khasu (Hyksos) never gained control of the entire country; only the Delta.

--A list of the HeqKhasu - "foreign kings/rulers" can be found at the end of Budge's dictionary. Does everyone know which dynasty to start looking in?

--The Hebrews role in history, because of the Bible, has been greatly exaggerated and/or overated, I think...

posted 04 April 2005 08:47 PM            

Pharaoh named Joseph "Za-ef nath pa Aniah" which I see loosely as "His son (who becomes) the Anu" and I interpret as Joseph being made an honorary or adopted Anu. Now we all know who the Anu were right?
...
(see Genesis)

posted 04 April 2005 10:32 PM            

quote:

---

jluis:
I reckon that the time gap between the defeat (not expulsion) of the Hiksos and the first mention of Hebrew/Israel in the Egyptian cronicles is of some generations. You mention 300 years. That is about 6 life-spans (say 50 years is the life of an "elder", the ones who maintain traditions and historical knowledge).

---

Your comment was along the lines that the exodus could have been associated with the leaving of the Hyksos after their defeat. In any case, whether you view that as an expulsion or a voluntary leave, the 'over' 300 year span doesn't square with the first available record of the Isrealite nation.
It is also important to realize that I am not simply talking of 300 years, but over three hundred years.

quote:

---

jluis:
It is time enough to expect a change in national identity but not too much to make the connection impossible.

---

What do you suppose would cause this sudden change of identity, because this obviously doesn't square with Isrealite tradition?

quote:

---

jluis:
About the problems posed by this in the settlement of the Jews/Hebrews in Levant, I should mention here that there is a theory that says that the Hebrews did not come to Levant as a already formed nation, with culture, tradition, lenguage, religion and so on. This theory, called the "Habiru" theory, states that the Hebrews formed as a nation once they were inside Levant.

---

Based on what are you connecting Habiru to Hebrew, because we know from available records that the word Hebrew itself as applied to Isrealites, doesn't occure until the 1st millennuim B.C.? Where is your philological connection?

Just because a word sounds like another, doesn't automatically bring about connections.

quote:

---

jluis:
Moreover, posses that they were not a single group in origin, but were created when groups of nomads out of the control of the Palaces of Levant managed to overcome the cities of Palestina (some of them at least) and allied with part of the population to create a new nation, later known as Hebrew.

---

I agree with the Habiru part, in which you talk of outlaws, and that it wasn't an ethnic group. And while it is plausible that the newly arrived "Isrealites" in the levant had allied with part of the population that was already located in the region, how does this thesis propose this came about?

quote:

---

The name habiru appears in old texts of the Canaan cities meaning literally "bandits" or "rebels" and designed the nomads and the fugitives living in the hilly country far from the coast of Canaan -that is, the future Israel and Juda- and fighting against the domination of the kings of these cities. What made them able to overcome the organised armies of the Canaan cities?

---

Again, I concur with the meaning of Habiru, but what connection does this have with "Hebrew"?
This picture you are painting is somewhat simplistic. First all, according to this theory, how did they overcome the Canaanite Kings?
You have to understand that at the time these newly arrived "Isrealites" supposedly came to Canaanite region, the region was already being invaded by what is called the "Sea People", who as a result of these actions, inevitably came head to head with the Egyptians. The evidence for this is on the Merneptah stele. With all this happening how do you suppose the newly arrived "Isrealites" stood up to these invasions?

quote:

---

jluis:
Maybe just their own initiative and the support of fugitives from these very cities. But it is a tentation to link it with the coming of one group of exiled descendants of the Hiksos, with memories and expertise of how to deal and even govern a powerful nation as Egypt and memories of their ancient origin in Levant.

---

Again, how do you propose a bunch of nomads to stand up to invaders like the Sea People, to be followed by the Philistines? Again, the Sea people invaded Canaan to the point that they invaded even Egypt, the first of which is documented on the Merneptah *victory* stele. Chronology is lacking here. You need to provide sequence of events, so we can make sense of what you are getting at.

quote:

---

jluis:
Remember that Moses was, according to legend, "a prince of Egypt" who was denied his status because of his origin, the son of a "foreign" and non-noble woman.

---

Ok?

quote:

---

jluis:
And remember too that the monoteistic religion of the Jews has one precedent in Egypt: the monoteistic cult to Aton (the solar disc), impossed by Akhenaton, the last Pharaon of the dynasty that expelled the Hiksos. According to Egyptian history, the exodus took place after the wars that restore the old religion and the persecution of the believers of Aton (the only god).

---

Alright...

quote:

---

If this is true, the Pharaon of the Exodus was one of the sons of Ramses II, much probably Merneptah. And the time gap then is only two generations.

---

You have to take the Merneptah stele into the consideration here, the shocker to those who harbor this senario. The Merneptah inscriptions indicate that Isreal existed by this time, which doesn't square with the idea of the exodus happening during Merneptah. Moreover, this was a *victory* stele, which indicates that Isreal may have been strong military force, enough to get some attention in the first place, but one who just newly arrived on the scene without *a territory*. Before this, there is not a single mention of "Isreal" anywhere else. Interestingly this name first appears on an Egyptian record!

quote:

---

jluis:
The gap is narrowed and the history takes a new meaning: the Jews were the result of the alliance between an elite with experience of government and a monoteistic religion (the descendant of the Hiksos) and the nomads and other non-asimilated peoples living in the hills, out of the power of the Canaan cities.

---

You can rule out the exodus with Merneptah being the Pharoah; it is not plausible. As for this alliance you speak of, who were these elite supposed to be, what hills are you referring to. When you say these hills were out of cities, does this not contradict your earlier point that they confronted Kings of Canaanite cities? When was this supposedly the case? Please feel free to clarify!

I hope you now see why when talking of events, you need to point out the timeframe or chronology, so things can start to make sense.