Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Banyai AT t-online.de (Michael Banyai)]

Hallo Marianne:

I know of Bietak´s pondering over the archaeological data. But first of all 
Hatschepsut´s Speos Artemidos statement Hyksos were in Awaris, etc., etc. may 
probably referr to previous times. The range of the asiatic rebellion 
described by Thuthmosis III is north of the limit set by Sharuchen. So are 
also the coalitionaries against him in the north. So Awaris, should we 
identify it indeed with the site of later Pi-Ramesse (what I don´t) was únder 
Egyptian controll. But even than, any other identification of Awaris is 
incompatible with Thutmosis plus your theory.

The situation after Ahmose describes for me as following. Two of the main 
vassal-states of the Hyksos seceded, Egypt and Retenu. You read in a first 
Egyptian-Hyksos encounter about seeing ships mooring in Awaris loaden with - 
I suppose - the booty from Retenu. An other intention of the passus about the 
ships in Awaris renders it insnificant. Apophis was in this moment apparently 
surprised with his main army being abroad, operating in Retenu. Ahmosis fell 
over Apophis while the later campaigned in Retenu, the same that the later 
tryed to arrive with his sending of a messenger to the king of Kush: a 
classical two-front war. The Egyptians hoped that after the defeat of the 
Hyksos and marrying into the dynasty (Xrjt the daughter of an 3-wsr-Re 
(probably Apophis) ) they would be accepted as the inheritors of the Hyksos 
asiatic realm, what simply didn´t happen. Retenu went its own ways, and the 
Egyptians arranged themselves with the situation, maybe even by offering them 
help against Mitanni on the Euphrates line.

Concerning the Cretans and the Punt-commerce:

A notice from the 6-th dynasty tells about an official´s 11 trips to Byblos 
AND Punt (my stress over "and"). The point is that the Egyptians and all 
other nations trying to take part in the Punt-trade organised it as a 
joint-venture. One partner was in military controll of the land-crossing of 
the Negeb, the other partner was a sea-faring country of the Levante, 
offering the ships and the know-how. Generally were the ships constructed on 
the Mediteranean-coast because of the lack of good wood on the Red sea coast. 
The ships had to be transported in pieces and be reassembled on the other 
side of the Sinai. During the 6-th dynasty, this was clearly a joint-venture 
between Egypt and Byblos. Later on, 13th dynasty Papyrus Ipuwer recalls the 
settling of Keftjw on the coast west of Egypt (dolphin vase from Lischt!), it 
became a joint venture between land-controlling Hyksos pharaohs and keftjw, 
their relations being documented for example by the frescoes from Tel ed 
Daba. After the fall of Hyksos was the Negeb controlled in the south by the 
Egyptians and the north by the Retenu (separation line the Brook of Egypt 
Jurza-Gaza above Sharuchen mentioned by Thuthmosis III) which soon became 
commercial concurents. Thutmosis III recalls a fenkhu provocation, one of the 
reasons of his war. Probably were the fenkhu/Phoenicians represented by the 
new emerging leading city, Tyre, the new associates of the Retenu, trying to 
stop the development of a parallel Egyptian+Keftjw Punt-trade. They probably 
attacked the Keftjw represented as Egyptian allies at the time of 
Hatzschepsut - and reported by the bible south of the line Jurza-Gaza- 
(keftjw is in Canopus-document translated in its Greek version by Phoenix) 
and forced Hatschepsut to move exceptionally all preparations to a Punt 
expedition away from the traditional Negeb route and prepare it on her own 
through the Egyptian Eastern desert. That was the singularity of her 
Punt-expedition, a thing which never before was. Later on we know of such a 
cooperation between Solomon and Tyre. Joint ventures, but not specially 
relating to Punt, the Phoenicians cooperating with the Assyrians and Persians 
are also known for later ages. 

I doubt the possibility of an identification of the keftjw with the Hyksos. 
The Tell Yahudieh ware typical in its Egyptian and Palestinian forms for the 
Hyksos realm is everything but similar to the minoic ceramic - existent too 
as a local manufacture in this zone and not just a matter of import from 
Crete - I already mentioned the dolphin vase from Lischt. The Levantine 
keftjw (the one´s probably represented by Hatschepsut) are still very minoan, 
having become assimilated and asiatic look-alikes only later on. So, should 
there have been a keftjw domination we would than have more of this Cretan 
ware and less of this dominant Tell Yahudieh ware.

This is a discussion of the story out of scraps, but its plausibilty comes 
from the fact, that all the scraps/details become a deeper meaning and 
explain why these details otherwise of little importance, were apparently so 
relevant for the people.
 
> > 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?

W. Helck, Untersuchungen zu Manetho und den ägyptischen Königslisten, Berlin, 
1956, pp.35-36

I must however correct myself, since my memory was tricky. The bulk of Helcks 
referrences concerned Abraham and not Moses/Exodus.It is however interesting, 
I suppose, for you, so I´ll quote Helck for you. However still the point 
concerning Moses on page 36, following a short glimpse on the 
Toutimaios/Ddw-msw equation: 

"Möglicherweise ist auch der Kenefres, den Artapanus als Zeitgenossen des 
Moses erwähnt, mit Waddell als Kenefer-Re Sobek-hotep zu identifizieren und 
könnte aus Manetho stammen."

Now the numerous refferences to Abraham as associated with Amenemhet II (an 
equation I take very serious).

"So findet sich immer wieder eine Angabe, daß als Zeitgenosse Abrahams ein 
ägyptischer König anzutreffen sei, dessen Name verschieden überliefert wird:  
                         
Plin. nat. hist. 36, 11,74 Nencoreus Sesoidis filius
Chron. Pasch, p. 46  Nechor
Theoph. ad. Autol. II31 Nechaon
Josephus bell. Jud. V9,4 Nachans
Malalas 59 (und 70) Naracho
Cedr. I 35  Narecho
Exc. Barb. 65 Arouth (aus Narouch, vgl. Unger, Manetho p. 129)
Malalas 27 Maracho
Johannes v. Antiochien FHG IV 543 Karacho
Wir sehen hier deutlich, wie sich der Name in der Überlieferung verändert; 
dabei ist die von Plinius überlieferte Form Nencoreus die beste und zeigt an, 
dass es sich um Nebkaure Amenemhet II des Sohnes Sesotris I handeln muß. Die 
Angabe stammt also aus  einer Quelle, die eine ägyptische Liste bei der 
Behandlung jüdischer chronologischer Probleme   herangezogen hat. Dass es 
nicht Manetho war, ergibt sich dadurch, dass dieser ja Amenemhet II mit 
seinem Geburtnamen als Ammenemes aufzählt."One must not accept unconditioned 
the last sentence of Helck.
Best regards,Bányai MichaelStuttgart