Biblical Hebrew Forum

[MarianneLuban AT aol.com]

In a message dated 8/18/2004 8:24:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Banyai AT t-online.de writes:


> there is of course a great confusion between Tutimaeos / Dedumose and 
> Tethmosis, the one pharaoh having to deal first with the Hyksos and the one 
> falsely attributed by Manetho and al with their ousting.

Who says so?  What is there to indicate any confusion between Tutimaeos and 
Tethmosis?  The names are not even rendered the same way in Greek.  One might 
suspect a confusion if there were not a ruler named Dudimose among the petty 
kings in the Turin Canon during the Second Intermediate Period.  And who has 
the authority to contradict Manetho as being "wrong" today?  I suppose the 
same 
people who accuse Queen Hatshepsut of lying when she said the Hyksos were 
still in Avaris up to her own time.  This woman's father, husband and nephew 
were 
all named Thutmose.  Why is it so surely assumed that even though Ahmose 
drove out some Hyksos that others couldn't have come back to the great city 
within 
a matter of a few years?  Or perhaps Ahmose didn't really succeed as well as 
claimed.  Right after he chased the Hyksos to Sharuhen (on the southernmost 
tip of Canaan) Ahmose had to turn back to fight the Nubians--because they had 
formed an alliance with the Hyksos.
Also a great flood occurred in Egypt during his time and he had that to 
contend with, according to the "Tempest Stele" at Karnak.   


 The bigger the name the more stories are attributed to one, even if one has 
> nothing to do with.

Sorry, but that is not much of an argument against Manetho.

 You must admit that the end of the Hyksos, and the term is clearly defined 
for 
> Manetho by his Hyksos dynasty, came with Ahmose, and the rest is only 
> projection onto Tuthmosis (similar name like Dedumose/Tutimaeos, etc).

I can't admit this at all.  Manetho gives a Hyksos dynasty and the years he 
gives for it are quite correct when compared to the Turin Canon--but that 
doesn't mean subsequent people did not occupy Avaris, even though none of 
them 
declared himself "pharaoh".  Even a very powerful warrior king like Seti I 
had 
trouble keeping foreigners out of Egypt in his day--as the record proclaims.

> 
> Who the Hyksos have been is also quite clear in the mean-while: known from 
> Assyro-Babylonian sources Meluhha, and from biblical one´s Amalek.


It may be clear to you, but it doesn't seem to be to most people.  Even 
Manetho indicates that he wasn't so sure who they were with the statement 
"some say 
they were Arabs".  At another time he says the earliest Hyksos were from 
Phoenicia.

> 
> By chance I have got a notice completing my argumentation concerning the 
> position of Meluhha from an astronomical diary published in JAOS(BCE 
> (Sachs-Hunger Diaries, 2: 470 A 14-15, A = BM 41581) as rendered by Gera 
> and Horowitz in 
> JAOS 117.2 (1997)concerning the campaign of Antiochos IV into Egypt 169 BC, 
> saying:
> 
> "That month I (the astronomer) heard as follows: King Antiochus marched 
> victoriously through the cities of Meluhha and [...] the citizens, 
> processions 
> (pompe) and rituals akin to the style of the Greeks . [...]"
> 
> We know that Antiochos IV conquered that year but the Delta except 
> Alexandria. He should have destroyed all Egyptian temples in his way (the 
> later temple 
> of Onias was constructed over the ruins of such a destroyed Egyptian 
> temple)- this makes  jubilating Egyptian crowds rather improbable. This 
> besides the 
> rather improbable equation Meluhha=Lower Egypt (which contradicts most 
> other 
> sources) makes this reference apply to an Antiochos still underway to 
> Egypt. 
> The coastal towns of Amalek stretching till Sile would fit this description.
> 
> Just to quote a few other examples concerning Meluhha during the LBA and 
> later:
> 
> the geography of Sargon of Akkade (a late neo-assyrian fake from the time 
> of 
> Sargon II of Assur) : From…] the bridge of Baza on the edge of the road to 
> the land Meluhha to the mountain of cedar: the Hanean land, nine kings". 
> Bazu 
> is identified on the Stela of Sfire I as being a town on the Euphrates, 
> probably Zeugma. The stretch of the land of Meluhha is of 120 Beru (since 
> Asarhaddon walks along in the Negeb) thus north-south, through the desert 
> from Zeugma 
> till Negeb.
> 
> Assurbanipal counts Meluhha among the insurgent countries against his 
> reign. 
> In other inscriptions does take Arabia its place.
> 
> According to the bible does the territory controlled by the Amalekites 
> stretch between Hawila and Sile. Hawila is demonstrably nothing else as 
> Guzana 
> (mentioned in the inscription of the early Hurrian king Atalšen roughly 
> contemporary with the dynasty of Akkad. It mentions an offering to “Nergal, 
> Lord of 
> Hawilum” by Atalšen the good shepherd, king of Urkiš and Nawar. While 
> Bar-Bahlul (10th century) mentioning the toponym HWYL´ (Hwila, Huwayla, and 
> in one 
> exemplar of his lexicon H/Kwila or H/Kuwayla); which he associates with the 
> city of GWZN (vocalised Gawzan; Lexicon Syriacum ed. R.Duval [1888-1896] 
> col. 
> 426 and n .25). Thus does the territory attributed by the biblical sources 
> to 
> the Amalekites parallel the one of Meluhha in Assyrian ones.
> 
> This set against the name of the aloes in roman times, called "Ammos 
> Hiksoitike", which was brought from Arabia. The name of the last king of 
> the 
> Amalekites according to the arabian lore is much the same as that of the 
> last Hyksos 
> after the fall of Awaris, in Sharuchen: H3mwdj, that was es-Someida. The 
> syllabic writing H3mwdj renders H-m-d-, thus with three open syllables. 
> Manetho 
> usually renders „h“ as „s“. The Amalekites ought according to the same 
> arabic tradition have once controlled Egypt.
> 
> 

I leave your arguments and theories intact--but where does it indicate that 
Manetho usually renders h as s?