[Oxymoron]

http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com ... yksos.html

I am reading a book and they reference the Hyksos people, with the claim that they were in fact the Hebrews of the Bible. What do you peoplez know about this?

[Potemkin]

I've never heard them referred to as Jews before; I always understood they were Canaanites of some sort. No-one is really sure though. They were famous for having lots of chariots though.

[Oxymoron]

Right but isnt it true that the Bible refers to the fact that the Hebrews and Canaanites joined up under Jacob leadership. Perhaps there was some kind of drought or disaster that brought the Semitic people into Egypt where they siezed power and then were forced out (exodus) or perhaps enslaved and then they left together under Moses. It would make sence then for Joseph to become so powerful, but they needed to make the Egyptians look bad they couldnt make Joseph an invader if they wanted good book sales.

[Potemkin]

The people are shown below wearing the cloaks of many colors associated with the mercenary Mitanni bowmen and cavalry (ha ibrw) of Northern Canaan, Aram, Kadesh, Sidon and Tyre.

Wiki page.

Interesting....

[Paradigm]

I've never heard them referred to as Jews before; I always understood they were Canaanites of some sort. No-one is really sure though. They were famous for having lots of chariots though.

As I understand it, the Hebrews were ethnically identical to the Caananites. "El," one of the earliest Hebrew names of God, was originally a Caananite deity.

Anyway, if the Hebrews were the Hyksos, it would help us make sense of the story of Exodus much more clearly.

[noemon]

No scholar identifies the Hyksos with the Jews. In fact whether they were even Semites, let alone Jews is based on one single name, that is theorized to be a name of a semitic language definitely of Assyrian origin. And thats where it stops.

From the Old testament we can know for sure that the Jews were definitely not the Hyksos, since the Egyptians called them "foreign rulers" or "shepherd kings", and the Jews claim they were slaves. This does not add up however one looks at it.

Jacobovici is no scholar but a charlatan of the history chanel.

[Corporatios]

I think 'El' was the major God of the Phoenicians.

About Hyksos I remember that they were people that raided Egypt from the sea. For some they were the Phoenicians, but there is also the theory that it was a reference Egyptians used for all raiders.

In the game Empire earth I, in the Greek campaign, it was reffering to Hyksos as one of the tribes that formed the Greek nation, after migrating to Crete and Peloponesse from the coasts of Middle East. It was basically relating them to the Minoan Civilization.

[noemon]

Those were the so-called 'Sea-peoples', which the Hyksos are not included among them as far as I know. Ofc thats a game, so its nothing serious but still, games and tv have a serious propensity to form "world-views".

[Corporatios]

Those were the so-called 'Sea-peoples', which the Hyksos are not included among them as far as I know.

Are you refering to the game? You mean the tribe that moved to Crete and Peloponesse in the game was Sea People and not Hyksos? I think it was Hyksos but ofc it has been over 5 years, I might be wrong. Btw, I thought Sea-People and Hyksos were supposed to be one, accrording to the fade memories I have from our school books.

Ofc thats a game, so its nothing serious but still, games and tv have a serious propensity to form "world-views".

The game had an extensive historic reference before each level of the campaign, which was almost a full page with normal letters(lots of stuff ). Certainly we can't take it as a historic source, but since they didn't have a reason to create some false perception over the issue and surely they could have used dozens of other more known and interesting stories instead, we can assume that they based their sotry to some historic references at least. In fact I remember this tribe had a lot of chariots and this was related to such findings in Crete and Peloponesse!

[QatzelOk]

From the Old testament we can know for sure that the Jews were definitely not the Hyksos, since the Egyptians called them "foreign rulers" or "shepherd kings", and the Jews claim they were slaves.

So is the connection untrue because the Jews were definitely slaves?

Or is it possible that the Hyklos really were "The Jews", and the slave story was just a mythological call to dominate others (or else)?

[noemon]

The connection is untrue because it doesnt match historiographically, simple as that. It can be theorized that with the Hyksos exodus, maybe some of the slaves left as well in the heat of the moment, and perhaps with that exodus, the ones who later became known as Jews, left as well. Not that the one is the other.

Qatzel, have you considered that you are a Jew-bot sustaining a domination-supremacy myth? Serious question. No joking.

Corporatios, am referring to history, not the game, am saying that those who the game calls as Hyksos and places them in that historical role, are the Sea Peoples, and the Hyksos are not included among them as far as I know.

[Potemkin]

My understanding has always been that the Sea Peoples attacked Egypt in around 1200 BC, but the Egyptians managed to beat them off. They failed to beat off the later invasion of the Hyksos, however, who invaded primarily overland rather than from the sea. The Hyksos were famous for their use of massed chariots; it's a bit difficult to use chariots when invading from the sea.

[QatzelOk]

Qatzel, have you considered that you are a Jew-bot sustaining a domination-supremacy myth? Serious question. No joking.

Foucauldian power would explain how I might be unconsciously acting as a conduit for a power structure. And it definitely explains how a mythological text that grows power might come to be so important.

This usurping operates in much the same way that cars take over the roads where bicycles used to go before. With the arrival of the aggressive text/road traffic, the less aggressive text/road traffic is destroyed by the (sometimes) accidental violence of the newly dominant vehicle.

The text writers/car dealers are empowered by the proliferation of their product, so they contribute a lot of resources to "educating" the public into loving their aggressive and hateful product.

[ninurta]

The Hyksos were canaanites that invaded Egypt, who were ultimately defeated by either Ahmose or Kamose, forgot which.

[Einherjar]

The relationship between the Hyksos and the Hebrews would seem to make sense when based on the traditional biblical chronology. The Hyksos were defeated and disempowered by Ahmose I, the founder of the 18th dynasty, the same dynasty in which the Exodus is said to have taken place. The problem, however, is that Canaan was at the time under Egyptian control. Any independent kingdom in that area, Canaanite or Hebrew, would have had to await the power vacuum caused by the waning of the Egyptian and Hittite Empires (possibly by the hands of the Sea Peoples) until the emergence of the Neo-Assyrian Empire at least.

[ninurta]

The relationship between the Hyksos and the Hebrews would seem to make sense when based on the traditional biblical chronology. The Hyksos were defeated and disempowered by Ahmose I, the founder of the 18th dynasty, the same dynasty in which the Exodus is said to have taken place. The problem, however, is that Canaan was at the time under Egyptian control. Any independent kingdom in that area, Canaanite or Hebrew, would have had to await the power vacuum caused by the waning of the Egyptian and Hittite Empires (possibly by the hands of the Sea Peoples) until the emergence of the Neo-Assyrian Empire at least.

Actually there is a tribe called the Habiru that the egpytians had lots of trouble with while they ruled. Are they the hebrews? I don't know, but they could be, not a whole lot is known about them beyond they kept attacking egyptian ruled cities. I think its possible though, especially since when the Neo-Assyrian kingdom did come about, there was 2 hebrew kingdoms.

It's not like there is no evidence under egyptian reign that they existed, their just isn't conclusive proof. And they had to be there, I mean, they had to be there for centuries later to be 2 of the main kingdoms of the area of Canaan. Judah being one of the only kingdoms to succesfully resist invasion in Canaan against the Assyrians.

[Einherjar]

When the Neo-Assyrian Empire came about, the Egyptian Empire had long since declined. The power vacuum some time in between 1200 B.C. and 800 B.C. led to the flourishing of the Phoenician city-states and also to the creation of the Kingdom of Israel which was, after a century, divided into the two kingdoms you speak about. So the Hebrews were indeed an independent people at some point after circa 1200 B.C (and definitely after 1030 B.C), but not before that (as Biblical chronology suggests).

The Habiru hypothesis is very interesting. Historians seem to be divided on whether the Habiru were Hebrews or bandits, former slaves and rascals, that is whether Habiru was an ethnic designation or a social one. But couldn't it be possible that they were both, that is the Hebrews being originally a band of such ethnically diverse people that was to eventually form one ethnic group? I think this could account for a number of things, including the Exodus story and the adoption of monotheism (the "urge" for these people to form one undivided ethnic group led to the creation or adoption of one god).

[babilonian]

But couldn't it be possible that they were both, that is the Hebrews being originally a band of such ethnically diverse people that was to eventually form one ethnic group?

Indeed. Abraham left Mesopotamia not alone. Over the many years, many have joined him and his group. As he called for the believe in a single G-D and so anyone can join. Also history does mention that both kingdoms of the Jews, Judea and Israel had rivalry amongst each other. As one saw itself the true pure blood and the other was not.

[ninurta]

When the Neo-Assyrian Empire came about, the Egyptian Empire had long since declined. The power vacuum some time in between 1200 B.C. and 800 B.C. led to the flourishing of the Phoenician city-states and also to the creation of the Kingdom of Israel which was, after a century, divided into the two kingdoms you speak about. So the Hebrews were indeed an independent people at some point after circa 1200 B.C (and definitely after 1030 B.C), but not before that (as Biblical chronology suggests).

The Habiru hypothesis is very interesting. Historians seem to be divided on whether the Habiru were Hebrews or bandits, former slaves and rascals, that is whether Habiru was an ethnic designation or a social one. But couldn't it be possible that they were both, that is the Hebrews being originally a band of such ethnically diverse people that was to eventually form one ethnic group? I think this could account for a number of things, including the Exodus story and the adoption of monotheism (the "urge" for these people to form one undivided ethnic group led to the creation or adoption of one god).

While there isn't much evidence beyond linguistics and the name as to say who these people were, though I think that personally that connection is a possible one.

As for monotheism, well since they had very pagan names to do with pagan gods, there is no evidence of their religion, but their names suggest they were pagan.

[starman2003]

From what I've read, the Hyksos were part Indo-European and part semitic. They were too early to be the Hebrews of the exodus. The latter most likely occurred under Ramses II roughly 1300 BCE or a little later. The Hyksos invaded and ruled Egypt several centuries earlier. Btw the term "Hyksos" wasn't their original name but, like so much else (including "Egypt") a name given them by the Greeks much later.