It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
They were known as shepherds. (Shepherd Kings)
They were known as shepherds.
A pharaoh of theirs was called Jacoba.
A leader of theirs was called Jacob.
They were involved in a war with the Theban Egyptians.
They were involved in a war with the Egyptians.
There were storms and darkness. (Tempest stele)
There were storms and darkness.
Some 500,000 were ejected from Egypt on a great exodus.
Some 500,000 were ejected from Egypt on a great exodus.
They set off from Pi-Ramesse (Avaris).
They set of from Pi-Ramesse.
They travelled to Jerusalem. (Manetho)
They travelled to Jerusalem.
They were a mighty military force.
They were a mighty military force.
They destroyed Jericho.
They destroyed Jericho.
Originally posted by ralphellis2
All sources are from original texts (Egyptian, Israelite and Greek), it is only the interpretation that differs. Yes, this would have large implications for orthodox theology.
>>They (the Hyksos) were polytheists. The "Jewish" theory isn't well
>>supported by the evidence, I'm afraid.
As were the Jews - originally. The Israelite god was called Adhon, Yahweh, Elohim and Shadday, which were all separate gods at one point. Adhon is from the Egyptian Aton (Adon), the Sun god.
Yahweh is from the Egyptian Yah, the Moon god. Eli became the Greek Eli (Heli), which formed the Greek Helios, or the Sun god once more. The Koran also makes it clear that Abraham worshipped the Sun and Moon. There was also a great deal of phallic worship in the Old Testament, as in 1Ki 15:13. You will note that modern translations will not say 'penis'. The Vulgate Bible comes closest, saying it was a 'priapus'.
The Hyksos-Israelites only became monotheist after the reforms of Pharaoh Akhenaton, who banned all idolatory and intituted a singlular hidden god (sound familliar?).
Yes, but Abraham must have. Abraham had an army of about 32,000 infantry. Are you saying that they had no weapons?
It had nothing to do with agriculture, it was all astrological. Shepherd means Aries, as the conversation between pharaoh and Joseph betrays. The constellations move every 2,000 years or so and Taurus had just given way to Aries (circa 1800 BC). This is why Joseph was comparing bulls with sheep and why Moses had so much trouble with bull-worshippers.
The same happened in 10AD, when Aries gave way to Pisces. This is why Jesus was born as a Lamb of God but became a Fisher of Men. The sign of Christianity is the fish, and this version of Judaism was created at the start of the sign of Pisces. We now stand at the 'dawn of the age of Aquarius'.
He was a Hyksos pharaoh of the 16th dynasty called Yakoba (Yakobaam). Remember the Hebrew Y is sometimes translated as our J. Jacob was actually Yakob. See any decent king list - try Chronicle of the Pharaohs, Peter Clayton. Manetho's and the Turin king lists are notoriously incomplete, especially about the Hyksos period.
>>The Theban Egyptians are not the same as "all Egyptians."
Where does the Bible say 'all Egyptians' ? There is a long-standing tradition in Egyptian literature that the term translated as 'Egypt' more often than not refers to Upper Egypt.
Egypt (Upper) rarely has notable storms that are worthy of record.
However, there was a notable event at this time - the eruption of Thera (Santorini), which covered Egypt in fine ASH. This event was just a generation before the Hyksos exodus from Egypt, and indeed the eruption may have precipitated that exodus by causing religious strife.
The Bible has confused the Hyksos exodus and the later exodus of Pharaoh Akhenaton.
>>Some 500,000 were ejected from Egypt on a great exodus.
>>No records of an Egyptian exodus. Got source?
Manetho fr 42. He says 240,000 but this is generally thought to refer to soldiers. If dependents were included, a conservative 500,000 would easily be reached.
>>They set of from Pi-Ramesse.
>>Got a Biblical source for this?
Ex 12:37 Ramses is normally equated with Pi-Rameses, or Avaris.
>>quote: They travelled to Jerusalem. (Manetho)
>>They travelled to Jerusalem.
>>Manetho was here chronicaling the Jews. Not the Hyskos.
No he is not. Quote:
On these terms the Shepherds (Hyksos) ... no fewer than 240,000
persons left Egypt and journeyed over the desert to Syria. There ...
they built in the land now called Judaea a city ... and gave it the
name of Jerusalem. fr 42
He (Josephus, the quoter of Manetho) then goes on to explain the etymology of the term Hyksos. Clearly, the Hyksos were the Israelites, just as Josephus Flavius (historian circa 50AD) says.
I agree, they were. However, the relationship of the Israelites to the Hyksos cannot adequately be made since, much is unknown about these people; what is known is too far at odds with the Biblical accounts of the Jews and their travails. Perhaps in the future we will learn more about how this group influenced middle and upper Egyptian religion and politics from the 17th through 16th centuries BCE, until then, their relationship to the Egyptians/Jews should be left in the periphery.
Originally posted by ralphellis2The Israelites were pharaohs of Egypt
Hmmm...
Originally posted by ralphellis2
Not true. The Egyptian past of the patriarchs spoiled the new Judaic mythology that was forming in Jerusalem (or Babylon). The Egyptian past inferred that the Israelites had been polytheists; had indulged in incest; had been very wealthy and influential (instead of poor beduins) - in fact, they had done many of the things that they now despised.
How?!?! They were dead before he lived!No, but he could have influenced them while he was alive.
>>Akhenaten couldn't possibly have influenced people who lived 400
>>years BEFORE he was born.
I see much more clearly the enduring strife in Palestine--between Edom and the Jews. There is far more evidence for that, than what you are suggesting. Manetho (we don't even know for sure that Manetho was actually the author's name) 'clearly arguing' something from so distant a time and place is not a reasonable disqualification against the bible--whether one believes it as true or not. The bible, just as a book of history, is more credible than Manetho--as well as more complete and more consistent. The value of Manetho's history has been defined by its use as a history--if that proves faulty, then what outside substantiation is there for what it says being trustworthy?
As Manetho clearly argues - there were actually two exoduses from Egypt. The first was the large Hyksos exodus. The second was the smaller exodus of Akhenaton. The Bible has merged these two stories into one - but if you look at the dispute between Jacob and Esau I think that traces of the first (Hyksos) civil war and exodus can be seen.
The torah was likely destroyed in Babylon--the temple in Jerusalem was ruled by the Mishna and the Babylonian Talmud more than the Torah.
The Bible says this was a family dispute, but Josephus says it was a major pitched battle between two armies. Remember that Josephus' version of the Bible is more authoritative than any extant Old Testament.
He had access to the Torah in the Temple of Jerusalem, which was probably some 1500 years older than any existing Torah.
Well, likely they smelled of sheep (have you ever caught the whiff of a herd of sheep?!?) and were not real keen on table manners. Contrast this with the Egyptians of the time--which was the center of civilization at that time.
Why say such a thing? What was wrong with shepherds?
They weren't hated--looked down upon for their livelihood is not 'hated'--and if not for the generosity and absence of the animosity of the Pharoah of Joseph--they never would have been in Egypt in the first place, they would have starved in the famine somewhere in Canaan--where they lived in tents! The 'hate' and fear directed at the Israelites by the Egyptians was due to the fact of the numbers--something Jake mentioned. There were a lot of them! If they had had control of the Egyptian throne, they wouldn't have been run out! The idea of the biblical exodus makes no sense from this hypothesis--and without the idea of the biblical exodus--the hypothesis is of no purpose.
The answer is that the brothers of Joseph were not 'shepherds' but Shepherd Kings (Hyksos) and they were hated because the civil war and first exodus had only just ended.
Translator--or interpretor? Two different things, often confused as one in the same.
Not in the Loeb version he doesn't. But that is often the problem with translations, we are dependent on the translator's opinion, which may not be correct.
Originally posted by ralphellis2
I remember writing about all this when I was 33. The truth is that there were two pharaohs in Egypt at this time (the Hyksos period) and a civil war had erupted between the Two Lands (Upper and Lower Egypt). Thus Pharaoh (the Theban pharaoh Ahmose I) was indeed oppressing the Hyksos-Israelites (the Avaris pharaoh, possibly Jacoba). The theory remains upright and unchallenged.
The Egyptian past inferred that the Israelites had been polytheists; had indulged in incest; had been very wealthy and influential (instead of poor beduins) - in fact, they had done many of the things that they now despised.
>>The well-established timeline puts a big hole in this argument:
>>Ahkenaten was born in about 1367 BC (dates vary)
>>The Hyksos, on the other hand, reigned in the 1700 BC era:
>>Akhenaten couldn't possibly have influenced people who lived 400
>>years BEFORE he was born.
No, but he could have influenced them while he was alive.
Originally posted by ralphellis2
As Manetho clearly argues - there were actually two exoduses from Egypt. The first was the large Hyksos exodus.
The second was the smaller exodus of Akhenaton. The Bible has merged these two stories into one - but if you look at the dispute between Jacob and Esau I think that traces of the first (Hyksos) civil war and exodus can be seen.
The Bible says this was a family dispute, but Josephus says it was a major pitched battle between two armies.
Remember that Josephus' version of the Bible is more authoritative than any extant Old Testament. He had access to the Torah in the Temple of Jerusalem, which was probably some 1500 years older than any existing Torah.
The answer is that the brothers of Joseph were not 'shepherds' but Shepherd Kings (Hyksos) and they were hated because the civil war and first exodus had only just ended. They were to say they were Apis bull worshippers instead (cattle breeders), to cover their identities.
>>The stars really don't "rule" who worships what. The Celts of that
>>period, for example, didn't worship any bull-like or cattle-like creature
>>in spite of all the cattle around.
But many cultures did. Look at the Minoans, the Indians, the Iberians.
Wherever Egyptian influences spread, the veneration of the constellations spread with them.
>>So they didn't really "rule Egypt" but ruled a section of Egypt.
Precisely, that is what the Hyksos did for much of their existence. The Two Lands were not united during this time.
>>Erm, the world of that era was VERY different than the one of today, speaking climactically.
Not really. The major climatic change in Egypt was before 7000 BC, when it was much wetter in the Sahara region, but that was way before dynastic Egypt.
>>Actually, the word Manetho uses is "families."
Not in the Loeb version he doesn't. But that is often the problem with translations, we are dependent on the translator's opinion, which may not be correct.
Originally posted by ralphellis2
But Akhenaton did just this - he completely changed the religion of Egypt almost overnight, by royal decree.
But I would agree that Akhenaton was involved in the (second) exodus, that the Bible has confused and merged with the account of the Hyksos exodus.
As it happens, the brother of Akhenaton was called Moses (Tuthmoses).
So we have two brothers: Akhenaton and Moses and Aaron and Moses. I think these were one and the same people, and that Akhenaton was thrown out of Egypt on the (second) exodus.
>>Akhenaten couldn't possibly have influenced people who lived 400
>>years BEFORE he was born.
>>No, but he could have influenced them while he was alive
>>How?!?! They were dead before he lived!
The Israelites were dead? What do you mean?, they are alive today.
When Akhenaton (Aaron) met up with the previous exiles in Jerusalem, he converted them to his new monotheistic religion.
That is why Akhenaton's god Aton (Adon) became the Israelite god called Adhon.
>>I'd dispute that. I'd like to see some evidence that there was another
>>pharaoh when Ahmose ruled (1570-1546). He tossed the Hyksos out of Egypt.
So who do you think Pharaoh Ahmose I was fighting? The Hyksos had their own monarchy, separate from Thebes - hence the civil war. Don't you recall the argument between Pharaoh Seqenenra (Theban) and Pharaoh Apepi (Hyksos) over the hippopotamii? This was one of the the sparks that started the long war between the Hyksos and the Thebans. The identity of the Hyksos king at the end of the war is unknown.
>>about 1400 AD. They did NOT exist back in the Egyptian dynasties.
Erm, you do worry about trifles - I was using the term in the generic sense. Bedouin - an Arab of the desert; wandering; gipsy. (Oxford dictionary)
>>That's not possible. Jacob and Esau had their snarkfest BEFORE the Hyksos
>>came in. Biblical scholars give dates in the range of 1900 BC.
You think that the early biblical story can be dated that accurately? Biblical dates can only be equated with known historical events, so once we go back beyond Pharaoh Shishak (Sheshonq), biblical dates are pure guesswork.
>>Esau also founds Edom in the area of Jordan and Palestine... an area
>>that the Egyptians didn't rule.
Edom means the Red Land - the original Egyptian name for Lower Egypt.
>>I'll dispute that one. The Torah was compiled in 70 BC by a group of Rabbis.
>>Furthermore, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the (relative) accuracy of the
>>Old Testament translation.
I am sure it was, but no copy of this exists, and the earliest dates from around 1000AD. Conversely, Josephus was using a copy of the Torah dating from 500BC, and very early copies of his version (circa 500AD) are extant.
>>Oh, there were many climactic changes... the Holocene hypsithermal in 5,000 BC
>>among many others:
What does this have to do with dynastic Egypt??