Biblical Hebrew Forum

[MarianneLuban AT aol.com]

In a message dated 8/18/2004 1:34:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Banyai AT t-online.de writes:


> Subj:Re: [b-hebrew] Ark of the Covenant 
> Date:8/18/2004 1:34:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> From:Banyai AT t-online.de
> To:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Marianne:
> 
> > 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.   
> 
> Hatschepsut doesn´t referr to a reconquest of Awaris by the Hyksos, fact 
> which is simply aberrant and archaeologically demonstrably wrong. Read 
> Bietak´s 
> dig reports.

She says they were *there*--in Avaris.  Do an online search on the Speos 
Artemidos.  I have read Bietak's dig reports.  Previously, he had declared 
the 
pumice and Aegean decorations there to be from the time of Ahmose, but has 
now 
altered his position to the time of Thutmose III.  That's who I, personally, 
think the neo-Hysos were--Aegeans--driven to Egypt by the long-lasting ill 
effects of the Thera eruption.



> 
> In fact we understand more when reading her follower´s Thuthmosis 
> statement, 
> to justify his war with Retenu, that as the (Egyptian) army in Sharuchen 
> was 
> the foreign lands rebelled beginning from ... U

Unfortunately, the part about Sharuhen is broken and nobody knows exactly 
what it 
> says with regard to this place. Thutmose III's justification for going to 
> war in his Year 22 is that over 300 princes, each with his own army, was 
> rebelling against him.  In other words, the empire that his grandfather had 
> won 
> was about to go to pieces.  But Thutmose prevailed against them all at 
> Megiddo--and that is why he is called the Napoleon of Egypt.


That means Retenu fell off from the former Hyksos controlled countries. The 
> Egyptians hoped to inherit the Asiatic posessions of the Hyksos after the 
> fall of Scharuchen, what didn´t happen. There is however no identity 
> between 
> Hyksos and Retenu. There is no evidence for identifying them with Retenu. 
> Both 
> Egypt and Retenu were once dominated by the Hyksos and seceded from them.


Once again, there are really no people called "Hyksos".  That is a term 
coined by Manetho.  He claimed it meant "kings of the shepherds", taking the 
term 
"Hq3w" (rulers) from the "sacred language" (Middle Egyptian) and "s3w" 
(shepherds) from vulgar speech (Demotic).  Actually, what Manetho was really 
alluding 
to was the designation "Hq3w x3swt" or "rulers of foreign lands".


> 
> You have still overseen the passus in Helck, Untersuchungen.

Do you expect me to have every publication in every language?  I asked you 
for the seven authorities who claimed an exodus took place in the 13th 
Dynasty--but you didn't give them to me.  If you have the publication, why 
not explain?

> 
> > > 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?  
> 
> You can read this as a plain statement in J. von Beckerath, „Untersuchungen 
> zur politischen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypten“, 
> Glückstadt, 
> 1964, pp.131 in the context of a discussion of the name of H3mwdj.
> 
> 
Oh--now I see what you're getting at.  There is no "H3mwdj" but just 
"xmwdj"--a little attested Hyksos king who is supposed to be the one Ahmose 
chased to 
Sharuhen--but nobody knows this for certain.  Yes, in certain Egyptian 
dialects /x/ was interchangeable with /S/.  However, there being no /S/ in 
Greek, it 
was written with "s".  I suppose when von Beckerath wrote /H/ he did so with 
a 
certain mark beneath it.  Why some scholars do this instead of plainly 
writing /x/ is beyond me.  It just makes for confusion because /h/, /H/, /x/ 
and /X/ 
are all separate graphemes.