Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<david.kimbrough AT charter.net>]

A key element overlooked in trying to tie biblical 
chronology to the archeological record is that fact that 
after the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, the Hyksos 
fled across the Sinai to Canaan, to a fortified city 
Sharuhen (Tell Ajjul, not far from Gaza).  Ahmose pursued 
the Hyksos across the Sinai and destroyed their fortress.  
He then conquered all of Canaan and large parts of what is 
now Lebanon and Syria.  Egypt control this region lasted 
for hundreds of years after. The Merneptah Stele (1210 BC) 
mentions that Egyptian forces under the command of 
Merneptah in Canaan defeated ?Israel?.  Specifically it 
states "Israel is laid waste, its seed is not." (Ashkelon 
and Gezer are also mentioned). The determinative is for a 
people, rather than a state.  As late as 1210 Egypt held 
sway over Canaan.

The point here is for hundreds of years after the expulsion 
of the Hyksos, there is no way for the Israelites to flee 
Egypt, wander about for 40 years, and then enter Canaan.  
Canaan was under Egyptian rule.  




> From: kwrandolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> Date: 2004/05/25 Tue AM 05:41:11 GMT
> To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Jericho, Rameses, & San Fransisco
> 
> Dear David:
> 
> I read a book a while back attributing Beitek (sp?) claim 
that the 
> site of the Hyksos capital, Avaris, was built on the site 
of an 
> Egyptian port that had a pre-Hyksos name of pi-Rameses. 
That Israel 
> called it by its pre-Hyksos name indicates that they had 
come to 
> Egypt before the Hyksos. After the Hyksos were expelled, 
the site 
> remained unimportant until the time of Rameses I or 
thereabouts.
> 
> Thus there is no need to posit either a late date of 
Jacob's arrival 
> in Egypt nor that later writers were writing 
anachronistically.
> 
> Years ago I came to the conclusion that Exodus occurred 
during the 
> time of the Hyksos who were concerned that Israel would 
pose a danger 
> to them. Israel called the Hyksos pharaoh "Egyptian" 
because he ruled 
> Egypt (the same way later writers called the Mongol 
rulers "Chinese" 
> or in more recent times the Manchus). The fly in my 
understanding is 
> that the traditional dates for the Hyksos is earlier than 
the Exodus, 
> but then I learned that other writers more learned than I 
also 
> question the traditional dates, making my understanding a 
possibility.
> 
> If the traditional dates are off by two or more centuries 
as some 
> have claimed, that would put the beginning of the iron 
age at the 
> time of King David. Tanakh mentions that David ran 
extensive iron 
> works. That would explain how Israel, a small, weak 
country with a 
> history of being a vassal nation to its neighbors, could 
suddenly 
> become a world power under David: he had wrested the 
secret of 
> tempering iron into steel from the Philistines and armed 
his soldiers 
> with steel while his enemies were all still armed with 
bronze.
> 
> While my understanding is not the statements of an expert 
(my main 
> interest being lexicography) I don't see how it can be 
ruled out.
> 
> Karl W. Randolph.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <david.kimbrough AT charter.net>
> 
> >  A different way to look at the issue is to consider 
that
> >  the OT in four separate locations assoicates the 
Isrealites
> >  with a region of Egypt called "Rameses" which appears 
to be
> >  located in the North-East corner of the delta (Gen 
47:11,
> >  Exd 12:37 Num 33:3, Num 33:5).  " Rameses " is not
> >  inconsistent with the city of "Pi-Rameses ", near "Pi-
Thom".
> >  Although it is not certain when Pi-Ramesses was built, 
it
> >  was probably not built before Ramesses I (who was born 
in
> >  the north eastern delta and died in 1290 BC) although 
it
> >  may have been built by Seti I.  If we take the OT at 
face
> >  value and assume that "Rameses " is the same as "Pi-
> >  Ramesses ", then according to Gen 47:11 Joseph settled 
in
> >  Rameses no earlier than the mid 1200?s BC.
> >
> >  Of course this may be an anachronism.  If it is 
assumed
> >  that the author(s) of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers 
were
> >  writing many centuries after the fact, they may have 
used
> >  the name of a region of Egypt that they and their 
readers
> >  were familiar with, not knowing it was built after 
then
> >  exodus.
> >
> >  All of this is assuming the actually was a battle of
> >  Jericho.  If for the moment that it is assumed that 
City IV
> >  was in fact destroyed by fire as Kenyon argued, that 
does
> >  not mean that it was destroyed by the Isrealites or 
that
> >  the fire was the result of warfare.  Both the cities 
of
> >  Chicago and London were destroyed by fire that had 
nothing
> >  to do with war.  In 1908 most of San Fransisco was
> >  destroyed by fires caused by an earthquake.  If three
> >  thousand years from now archeologists were to examine 
the
> >  ruins of San Fransisco, they would find a layer of 
upended
> >  foundations and carcoal.  They might conclude that San
> >  Fransisco was destroyed by invading isrealites.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 

David Kimbrough
San Gabriel