"Hyksos = Ancient Israelites?" Topic

First off, this is not my period. I post it only because I saw a History Channel program today that makes this assertion.

What I know about the Israelite Exodus is as follows: T have read the biblical book of the same name. I also know that some scholars claim there is no evidence of it, while others ask, "What kind of evidence would you expect to find?"

Anyway, this program asserts (among less plausible things) that the people the Egyptians called Hyksos were, in fact, the Israelites.

Makes sense in a strange way. After all, the Egyptians were find of writing history to fit the party line. After getting their butts royally kicked by the Hitites, they immediately went home and wrote about their great triumph.

This show's premise seems to be that the Israelites/Hyksos entering Egypt might not have been so peaceful, and eventually they left, after a period of semi-domination by the Egyptians. Each side then writes the history to it's best advantage. The Egyptians say, "Yeay! We kicked them out! The gods are with us!" The Israelites/Hyksos say, "Yeay! We escaped slavery! God is with us!"

One thing that is intriguing is that the writer states that the expulsion of the Hyksos, aroung 1500 BC, took place about the same time that the Israelite Exodus would have happened, if in fact it did.

Hardly a new theory. Josephus advanced it in the 'Antiquities'

Care for a reading list?

link

Caveat: the suggestions range from the sublime (Redford) to the… less than sublime (Knight and Loma;s "The Hiram Key". Actually, I enjoyed "The Hiram Key" from the Masonic perspective. But it's kind of out there…

Chronology, as always, is a problem.

Allen

"Lomas's"

I watched this too. Some interesting points. My question is how many of those points aren't taken out of context OR are supported by other discoveries? The idea does seem valid as it was presented. Editing?

Thanks,

John

The consensus among Egyptologists is that the Hyksos included the Israelites. There is, IIRC, an inscription or papyrus that mentions the 'Habiru' (or more corctly, since heiroglyphic writing doesn't have vowels, 'Hbr'), but I don't remember the context.

No.

Note: this is not a personal rant, but I can't help myself.

"I saw a History Channel program today"

I remember back in the day when TV was called "books" and the background "research" wasn't preceded by the word "market".

If you never believed anything you saw on the History Channel, you would be ahead of the game.

As rmaker implied, I support the theroy that the Isrealites were one of several tribes from the area which made up the Hysko 'Confederation'.

The timelines seem to match with the Hyskos coming and leaving Egypt. The Isrealites entered Egypt and gained control over one of the most fertile areas. Not something that would be expected from desitute refugees.

The Isrealites left with an immense amount of gold and other booty. Not something ex-slaves would be expected to do. Even though they were 'ex-slaves' and had been for over a century, they assumed a precise order of march with military formations and assignments when leaving Egypt.

Can't resist …

All of this has to be prefaced with "If you believe the Bible is history" – which it is not.

All of this has to be prefaced with "If you believe the Bible is history" – which it is not.

The Old Testament certainly qualifies as an oral tradition of a Semitic people that was put into writing. Subsequently there is at least a scintilla of truth and accuracy in it and therefore it reasonably qualifies as a historical source. It is as valid IMO as the oft referenced stele's of Ramses the Great.

I suspect the tribe of Abraham was probably part of the Hyksos coalition as stated by others.

Donald~

I'm loathe to get into an argument about the Bible, as it's a generally pointless, even if fascinating, exercise. However, consider that your qualifications for a "reasonable" historical source would apply equally to the epic of Giligamesh or Hesiod's Theogony. Both have real and fascinating cultural value without being history in any sense of the word other than its most vague and least useful. Myth and religion as history is, essentially, not. Equating any of these to stele (for instance) which record events that are cross-referenced by multiple instances of written and representational accounts is simply not equatable. Could the Israelites (if they even conceived of themselves in this way at the time) have been part of the apparently disparate tribal groups that took advantage of the Hyksos usurpation of Egyptian power structures? Certainly, however there is no indication that they played any sort of significant role or had any lasting influence, other than their own understandably self-aggrandizing and historically somewhat unlikely myths and legends – which it is good to remember we possess in a form carefully crafted two-thousand years after the events in question!

Ah, I see I picked up a couple of stifles for questioning the Bible – or perhaps the History Channel?

Hi

The western chrisian obsession with proving the bible is a bane on serious research. A classic case of "observer bias".

This is an attempt to tread a dozen questions as one simple one. Is the story of the sons of abraham people looking back and inventing an idea that never happened? Who were the hyksos(history suggests a coilition of assorted disaffected young men of various tribes answering a call to join in a "fun raid"). Was the story of Joseph real or metaphorical? Were these things at the same time by design or coincidence? What was exodus and when? And on and on and on.

Rocky

PS – something bothered me about my date of two-thousand years after the event, and to be fair that applies only to the commonly accepted Latin version of the Vulgate, while the earlier Greek tradition of the Septuagint probably goes back to late classical times and certainly to the Library of Alexandria (don't have my sources handy), which would date it to "only" 1300-1500 years after the events in question.

And now for the thread hijack – remember back when the History Channel had stuff other than Ice Road Truckers, Monster Quest and UFO searchers?

Though even at their height, any decent PBS history program put them to shame.

I said a scintilla of truth and accuracy.

I suspect there is as much in Gilgamesh and clearly more in the Iliad.

These are part of the record that we have; science and academia are foolish if they don't at least consider them.

Given the distortion in current history I suspect at some point we will be teaching the movie 'JFK' as fact, and dismissing the Nova on the same subject as pure fantasy.

CA TenWolde you can read into the above statements what you will. I stand by them.

There is historical information in the Bible; you do need to be able to discern the blatant propaganda and the exaggeration that was added to present a ripping good story. Really no difference in fact then Ramses the Great in his giant chariot single handedly defeating the Hittites at Kadesh.

What the…. Don't you DARE question Ramses The Great! :-)

I've heard of the Hyksos Expulsion==Exodus theory before. It seems to make sense if you are willing to take liberties with our understanding of the historical timeline for that period.

That theory does at least provide an historical backdrop for a large group of Semitic people leaving Egypt at the same time, and then provides some narrative for what those people might have gone through as they attempted to find a new place for themselves in the Levant.

If Exodus *doesn't* echo the Hyksos expulsion, one has to imagine that the Hyksos would have faced similar issues in their flight.

Another amusing/interesting theory is that Moses took Akhenaten's Sun Worship monotheistic cult out of Egypt with him, and the Exodus was part of the heretic purge after Akhenaten's death.

BTW – Wikipedia has info on the second theory under "Akhenaten"

I always liked the quote attributed to Galileo on the Bible while trying to make peace with the Church; "The Bible (or did he say scripture?) is truth our ability to understand it is suspect."

I'm sure I don't have it exactly right but that's the jest of it.

Seems to help satisfy my requirements for including it as an ancient historical source. There is truth in the book and words, I have a limited ability to understand them.

Surely Fox Mulder could point us in the right direction! LOL~

By sticking to the military aspects of the situation, a lot of confusion can be avoided or discounted.

Being slaves for centuries does not explain how they are able to assume military formations at the beginning of the retreat.

So you have the Bible telling us about the slavery heritage and the ability to assume military formations and conduct operations.

Contradictory, maybe? God's miricles can result in the happening of events but also the miricle maybe the timing of such events.

Another example: Can the Isrealites winning during a battle result due to upraised arms and losing happen when the arms are lowered? Certainly. Men in battle are more willing to fight fanatically if they feel that the Lord or even a Commander is blessing them. Inspiring the troops with drums, flags and upraised arms is certainly a possible motivator.

Here is my 2 cents/penny worth. Biblical research is very difficult due to lack of evidence and availablity/affordability of research material. There are a few worthies in the gaming circle ie Nigel Stillman who have gone to great lenghts to provide us with a balanced view that has allowed the Biblical period to expand in wargaming etc. The problem is they are on an itellectual plain that puts them off replying on the likes of here.

There is also "the know it all" who has read a couple of books and willing to stake everything on them. Also,think of the professer with 10 books on Neadertal behaviour who realises that their 20 years of work may be wrong. will they own up or debate to the end to save face.

Anyway did not see it but I would always keep an open mind with a sceptical thought.

Sorry. My above statement may seem like a rant and does not address the question. Appologies for any offence if any caused.

Hardly a rant, Colin. I think you raise some good points.
Do you think the lack of research into the historical aspects of The Bible is due to the prickly nature of dissecting a holy book?

1. I could see the Hysksos as being a reference to the Israelites/Hebrews/whomever these guys are. IIRC, the Bible mentions in Exodus "..a diverse group of peoples." Assuming that isn't some type of wishful thinking on the part of the editors, I guess Hyksos could be a simple ancient catchphrase the for the lot of Semitic peoples that pulled up stakes. Seems to make sense.

2. They left in military order? Where'd this come from? Flavius Josephus?

3. An "intellectual plain that puts them off replying on here" eh? Well maybe we're the nonintellectual island repository of replies then…sigh, poor little island.

In Exodus the Pharoh is concerned that the Hebrews may combine with their enemies, which paints them as part of the detestable Asiatic masses, from the Egyptian point of view.

Re the military formation point, I imagine years in work gangs cooperating dragging stone blocks etc actually prepares you quite well for assuming military formations?

especially when 'Military Formation' is 'Mob faaaaace -THATAWAY'. 'Mob faaaaaaaaaaace THISAWAY'.

Pat

Just had to chime back in. If the Bible isn't history, then what is it? Is it any less polemic than other ancient writings? Of course not. "RAH RAH RAH! SIS BOOM BAH! GO YAHWAEH GO!" But what do you expect? It is nonetheless an invaluable look into the military, legal, religious and cultural history of the ancient world. Only an idiot would discount it.

"Lomas's"

Shouldn't that be Lomas' with no extra s, if we are being pedantic? :-)

Hi

As I alluded to before…there isn't much provable about exodus, but the funding is easier to try!

And that is the real problem. Oddly, the trojan war was the same problem but not as fanatical.

One observation about this is that the bible was an oral tradtion until the Babylonian captivity, and it would't be a streach to allow some of the problems involve merging thousand year old stories into one narrative.

Now, there is the promise in the old testiment that god will maintain the truth of the bible when it travels from people to people and language to language. But the assumption might not be that god is concerned with our attitudes of "history" versus the moral issues on behaviour!

The passion does get in the way, though.

Rocky

Augustus, according to the Bible they formed the Isrealites into a vanguard, rear guard with certain tribes assigned to guard each flank as well. The formation formed a hollow square with the women, children and baggage train full of loot in the middle of the formation. Not intermixed with the 'guards as a 'mob (sanemax)formation would imply.

Are we also forgeting other aspects of military operations which can be seen when reading about the Exodus and conquest of Cannan.

My point is that the Isrealites were part of the Hyskos and were able to make a successful military withdrawal from Egypt because of that. If they had been mainly a slave culture then SaneMax's 'mob formations would be accurate but such a massive withdrawal would not have been possible.

Hmm. Very interesting!

Fred: I shall be pendantic.
No, both are correct. Actually, Allen's correction is the more correct.

The Israelites were a herder culture, ie naturally pretty sharp as skirmishing and light infantry work…

They more naturally moved into the Amorites' pastoral hill country, rather than the Canaanite city-states

Being slaves for centuries does not explain how they are able to assume military formations at the beginning of the retreat.

In the ancient world, military formations were often the same as the civil works formations. So maybe it does. It has been surmised that the Sumerian work crews that tended the fields and built the canals and walls were also the soldiers that fought their battles. The work crews were organized along the same lines as their military.

There is no reason to think that if the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, that they wouldn't be organized in an efficient manner as well. I suspect if they were indeed slaves they would have harsh discipline forced upon them and be forced to operate in formal way. It seems it would be much easier to control work force of slaves if they were marched to and from a worksite as opposed to rabble of bodies. Thus, when they left Egypt, they would do so in a manner that was familiar to them. In it is not a big stretch they would figure out when leaving to keep the vulnerable members in the middle of the formations.

I'm not saying it all happened that way. But it isn't a stretch to think so.

The Kyksos period in part of Egypt's history is well documented and of course there were also times when the Levant and it's hinterlands were under Egyptian rule, suzerainty or influence call it what you will.