Hyksos, Kings of Egypt and the land of Edom

[Sarah]

The Hyksos, Kings of Egypt and the land of Edom

By David J. Gibson
 
A surprising solution to a long standing intriguing problem.
 

This document sets forth the theory that the Edomites were the ancient Hyksos who invaded Egypt. If you are interested in investigating such a theory, we ask that you extend us the courtesy of starting at the beginning of the document, in order to follow our line of reasoning. Please note that this document has been split into fifteen web pages and comprises over 30,000 words. It was first published in 1962 under the title “Whence Came the Hyksos, Kings of Egypt” and has been revised and updated for publication on this website.

Table of Contents   Foreword
 Chapter One  The Enormous Hyksos Empire
 Chapter Two  The Mixed Origin of the Edomites
 Chapter Three  The Birth of the Kingdom of Edom
 Chapter Four  The Book of Job
 Chapter Five  The Hyksos-Edomite Empire
 Chapter Six  The Hyksos Used Horses
 Chapter Seven  Religion and Date of Edomite Empire
 Chapter Eight  Where Did They Go?
 Chapter Nine  Further Considerations
 Appendix 1  End Notes
 Appendix 2  Earliest Horses in Egypt
 Appendix 3  Hyksos Influence in Canaanite Cities
 Appendix 4  Comparison Table
 Appendix 5  Chronological Table
 Appendix 6  Maps
 Appendix 7  Bibliography

http://nabataea.net/hyksos.html

[Sarah]

FOREWORD

The theory set forth in this book was not an over-night inspiration. The first flash of thought along this line occurred to me during my early studies in the 1920's. That first flash received a rather skeptical reception in my own mind, but as time has gone on various facets of the original idea found enticing support through further study. Along with this, archaeological research continued to supply me with confirmatory factors, such as a strong Hurrian element in the Hyksos make-up. Over time it began to run in my mind that, that first flash had more to it than I had supposed. Thus it was finally decided to set down the theory in writing that others might consider it. Possibly it may prove an acceptable theoretical basis pending further research by someone more able than myself. Hopefully further information may prove confirmatory and enable this theory to pass in whole or in part into the realm of assured fact. If further interest and study is stirred up by propounding this theory, then, even though our main suggestion may prove wrong, still good will have resulted by the further research and study engendered to this neglected area of historical study. My years of study are coming to and end, but perhaps someone else will press on to really unravel the Hyksos mystery.

The theory at hand draws upon two main sources of information. First, the science of archaeology with some extra data from historical traditions, and second, the Bible. Both will contribute to our study. Very heavy dependence upon the Biblical record will be noted, as this is our primary source of information about the early history of this region.

The author may appear much too sanguine in this, to those who hold to the Graf-Wellhausen ideas of the composite J. E. P. origin of the Pentateuch, or Hexateuch, if they wish. If the Pentateuch was compiled in the 8th to 5th centuries B.C., as they suppose, it appeared long, long after the times it refers to. In many minds the reliability of the writings is thereby destroyed. Such readers may wonder why we fail to take cognizance of which hypothetical author (J, E, or P., etc.) is supposed to have contributed this or that particular passage which we quote and rely upon in this book, to see what bearing such authorship might have upon our theory.

To all such, we thus reply, first, this website is not the place for the discussion of hypothetical sources. Second, even if one granted the theory of the late composition of the Pentateuch (or Hexateuch), it does not necessarily follow that our theory would be thereby affected.

These late authors may have had good sound well preserved oral traditions to go by. Nay, in view of the great antiquity of writing, now greatly supported by archaeological evidence and antiquity far out-dating the times with which we deal, these late writers may have drawn entirely from written records originating near the events themselves. Can we prove otherwise? We feel we are in no position to question the accuracy of the Biblical records we quote, unless we have very clear proof that they are contrary to clear archeological evidence. We believe such proof to be lacking or quite inadequate.

Again, as to whether the names preserved in early Hebrew stories are of actual individuals or represent clans and tribes etc., we have this to say. Supposing such to be the case. What then? If by Abraham marrying Hagar is meant a clan from Egypt called the Hagarites intermingling with some Hebrew clan from which came the Ishmaelite clan we are still confronted with the Ishmaelites being of a mixed Hebrew-Egyptian origin, just as much as by taking the, names to represent individuals and as telling actua1 history.

Therefore, it was felt best, that in this paper we should assume to accept the Biblical evidence just as it comes to our hand, without raising questions none of us can answer. We give it the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully that will seem a fair treatment from any stand one may take in this matter.

Of course, the author feels free to hold his own opinions as to the writers of the Pentateuch. He is not ashamed to confess he finds difficulty in fully believing in the Mosaic authorship of all the Pentateuch saving the closing chapters of Deuteronomy. The Ugarit discoveries have put back alphabetical writing to the age of Moses, and such writing could be quite a bit earlier. Others may think differently. This difference need not upset fair consideration of the theory set forth in the following pages.

We wish to thank Dr. Arthur C. Custance of Ottawa for some help given through personal correspondence, (http://www.custance.org) as well as the Ameri-Cana Institute who made several searches for us, which were helpful.

As a note to the student of Hyksos history, the follow paper is quite lengthy. In order to present our theory and substantiate it with evidence, both circumstantial and actual, we have presented it in a paper some 30,000 words in length, supplemented with maps and illustrations. We ask the reader to grant us the courtesy of starting at the beginning of the paper and reading through it, in order to understand the arguments that we are presenting.


THE AUTHOR
Editors Note: This paper was first published in 1962 under the title "Whence came the Hyksos, Kings of Egypt." It has been slightly re-edited and updated in light of more modern research, including Dr. Manfred Bietak's excavations at Tell el-Dab'a. Some of the language and expression used, however, reflect an earlier style of writing.

[Sarah]

CHAPTER I
The Enormous Hyksos Empire
"Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane. . ."

The mysterious Hyksos or "Shepherd Kings" of ancient Egypt have long presented scholars with one of the more puzzling questions of history. These people were foreigners, not Egyptians. They invaded the country and then reigned in that land of the Nile as Pharaohs.

Seemingly out of nowhere, about seventeen hundred years before Christ, (1) a Hyksos king called Salatis, with his people, suddenly swarmed in on horseback across the eastern border of Lower Egypt. For a few generations they vigorously ruled from the Delta of the Nile, part of the time dominating all of Egypt. During this time they took on all the titles of native Pharaohs. They even adopt Egyptian ways, yet were never absorbed by or loved by the Egyptians. Indeed the Egyptians seem to have hated them intensely. The Hyksos seem to hold sway over an enormous ancient empire, of which luxurious Egypt was but a part, until finally the Egyptians arose against their masters. Then, as suddenly as they mysteriously came, they equally mysteriously pass away, dropping completely out of sight altogether. Driven back out of Egypt, not very long before the birth of Moses, the Hyksos Kings with their great empire promptly fade and disappear never to rise again. Not another trace of these people has ever yet been identified.

Where did these people go when they vanished in retreat? When Ahmose I (the Egyptian king who founded the XVIIIth Dynasty) drove the Hyksos armies from his country soon after 1580 B.C. the enemy retreated not only to southern Palestine, but retreated out of history itself!

The great Hyksos Empire became a forgotten empire, unrecorded in preserved history until the new science of archaeology began piecing together the exciting bits of evidence dug up here and there. No one has yet succeeded in tracing their retreat any farther, or in discovering their home towards which they seemed to be retiring. Who were these people? Many speculations and suggestions have been made. Some researchers have suggested they came from Kadesh and others suggest other cities in Syria. Some historians have looked toward Palestine itself. Still others try to link them with the Hittites of Asia Minor; and for a little while it was speculated that they might have been Hurrians. Some have gone as far as suggesting that their original home was beyond the Caucasus, while others have tried to connect them with the early Hebrews, relatives of the Israelites. (2) It is all very uncertain. The Hyksos remain an enigma and an unsolved riddle to this day.

A Solution from the Bible?
The proposal we would like to put forward is that a clue to the origin of the Hyksos Kings and people may be found in and through the pages of that profound and ancient Book, the Bible.

Too often the earlier portion of the Bible has been viewed as only myth, legend, and folklore. (3) It is looked upon as the literary product of a small and rather insignificant Hebrew tribe, which, after years of wandering around, ended up settling in the Palestine hills; a tiny nation which happened to possess some great and sublime ideas of the Creator and who evolved an excellent monotheism, but which was, paradoxically, woefully local and terribly cramped in geographical and historical outlook. Its book of origins (The Book of Genesis) is often considered as quite fantastic and unreliable as a source of historical fact.

But, surely, if such writers were capable of such sublime, spiritual concepts and were also keen observers of nature about them, (vastly superior to their polytheistic, magic-fearing neighbors) they must have been also capable of just as wide and as discerning a grasp of the political world about them and of the events of their own times in which they sometimes took part. Is it not utter folly for us to dismiss their writings as rather unreliable because they were a small people? One may as well argue that a writer living in little Switzerland, nestling among the Alps, simply could not be an authority on early history because he comes from a small nation or again that he would be unreliable on the history of two world wars because the Swiss took no part in it.

Swiss minds are not inferior to German, English, or American in grasping world evens. Hebrew minds were not inferior to Egyptian, Assyrian, or Babylonian minds in recording history. Indeed we are inclined to think the Hebrews thought in a wider and longer historical view and sense than is visible in much of the earlier records recovered from the great nations of antiquity. We must also remember that the Hebrews, living closer to the events we deal with, likely had better sources than we with our often sketchy and incomplete monuments dug out of the ruins of the palaces of self-centered and boastful monarchs. Again, in contrast to those records which acclaim victories but omit defeats, the Hebrews tell of both defeats as well as victories. Which do you think ultimately most trust worthy? So let us with confidence look to the Bible for light on the times of the Hyksos Kings.

In setting forth this theory, may we first however, examine the historical records uncovered by archaeologists and survey what they may tell us concerning these puzzling Hyksos Kings? Afterwards this will be compared with certain lesser noted parts of Scripture and a check made concerning a people there mentioned, to see if that people may be the origin of the Hyksos. Each reader may then draw his own conclusion as to whether our theoretical identification is to be classified as possible, or plausible or, (we hope not!) preposterous.

Scantiness of Hyksos Records
It is unfortunate that many of the monuments of the Hyksos Kings of Egypt have been lost. Such monuments would no doubt, have supplied the key to the information we now seek. The Delta region of Egypt, where the Hyksos appear to have established their capital after entering Egypt, is not as favorable to the preservation of records as is Upper Egypt. Possibly later Egyptian kings may have sought to destroy every trace of the hated invaders by throwing down and demolishing all their monuments. (4) While archeologists have discovered some traces of the Hyksos, a few records have been preserved, outside of occasional references in later Egyptian writings. The following is a brief summary of the main points of our knowledge of these mysterious kings.

No. l. The Extent of the Hyksos Empire
The name "Hyksos" was thought by the Egyptian historian Manetho (who lived before Christ, yet fifteen long centuries later than the Hyksos) to mean "Shepherd Kings." Many writers still refer to them under that name. As the Hyksos were Semites, and are also called "Arabians," and there may be an element of truth in the idea.

Arabians are commonly shepherds, and Manetho may have known of traditions current in his day giving him reason to believe they actually were shepherds. This may have influenced him to endeavor to make this meaning out of the obscure word, "Hyksos."

Modern scholars, however, are inclined to believe Manetho was mistaken in his derivation of the word. They think it means "Rulers of Countries." (5) Certainly, what we now learn of them bears out that meaning very well. According to Sir Charles Marston in "The Bible Comes Alive," (Eyre and Spotiswoode, London, 1937; pg. 42ff.), the word means "Royal Bedouin." He draws attention to the Ras Shamra or Ugarit tablets which mention the existence of Arabs in Southern Palestine in Patriarchal times, speaking an archaic Hebrew.

Prof. Breasted stated in "A History of the Ancient Egyptians" in 1919, (paragraphs 170-173), that monuments of Khian (or "John"), one of the Hyksos rulers, have been found not only in Lower Egypt, (the Delta region where they resided) but also 350 miles away to the south at Gebelen in Upper Egypt. His royal cartouches are found in Southern Palestine and his name turns up 450 miles off across the sea to the northwest in the Island of Crete. It is also found 750 miles away to the north east, in the distance beyond Palestine, Syria and the Arabian Desert where a granite lion bearing his cartouche upon its breast was found near Baghdad. Consider the far reach of these points on the map below.

[Sarah]

No wonder Prof. Breasted when viewing the great wide sweep of this astonishing evidence was moved to say that a person cannot behold it without entertaining the suggestion of, "... a vision of an empire which once stretched from the Euphrates to the first cataract of the Nile."

Were the Hyksos kings really "Rulers of Countries"? Yes, indeed! As heads over an empire embracing anywhere near such an extensive area as indicated by the locations of these monuments, they truly ruled over many countries and varied peoples. They must have dominated the world of their day.

This, then, is our first point. There was a great Hyksos Empire, which was centered in or not far from Lower Egypt; its general area as indicated above. The Hyksos entered Egypt from the east, and, strangely, instead of dominating Egypt from without, that is, from their own capital, they moved into Egypt and made that their center. These facts will be quite important to our later studies.

No. 2. Race and Language of the Hyksos
As to the race and language of the Hyksos, scholars were at first fully agreed they were Semites. They spoke a language closely akin to Hebrew. Then further research detected also a strong Hurrian element in their language, and suggestions were made that the Hyksos were Hittites. One researcher proposed a possible Amorite connection (6) Dr. Merrill F. Unger in "Archaeology and the Old Testament," Zondervan, 1954, p.14" states: "Eventually there arose a new king over Egypt, who ... knew not Joseph. (Exod.l:. Thus began the long years of oppression. This new king seems to have been the founder or an early king of the powerful 18th dynasty (1546...1319)."

Since the Hyksos invasion of Egypt was led by Semites, and not by Hurrians or Indo-Aryans, as studies have shown, it appears that the expulsion of the Hyksos around the middle of the 16th century BC was the important event that resulted in the oppression of the Israelites. Thus we conclude that scholars now again consider the puzzling Hyksos to be mainly a Semitic people, but with a Hurrian element, which we must not overlook.

On the monuments the Egyptians call the Hyksos "Asiatics" and "Barbarians." Manetho calls them "Arabians" and "Phoenicians." The Jewish writer Josephus, who lived in the time of the early Christians and was a contemporary to the events in the later chapters of the Book of Acts, found the then known facts concerning them so similar to his own nation that he jumped to the conclusion the Hyksos tradition was but a garbled account of the children of Israel in Egypt before the Exodus. This we know is not correct, as the Israelites were slaves, not kings of a great empire, but it does reveal that those traditions concerning the Hyksos made them appear racially very like to the Israelites who were Hebrews.

Sir Charles Marston in "The Bible Comes Alive" argues that the Hyksos were a Hebrew people, though not Israelites. That is, they were of the same racial stock as Abraham, who was a Hebrew. Marston also links the Hyksos with Arabs in part. We feel that in this, he was very near to the solution, as will be evident from our later studies.

Of course, we must recognize that there were other Hebrews aside from Abraham and his descendants, the Israelites. As Arthur Custance very keenly observed in a personal communication to the author, Joseph when talking to Pharaoh's butler says he was "stolen out of the land of the Hebrews." (Genesis 40:15) Dr. Custance continues, "But the mere presence of Jacob and his family in Palestine would hardly warrant it being called Hebrew-land. Evidently a much wider Hebrew domination was in fact existing, a domination by others than Israelites, who were, nevertheless, termed Hebrews." (http://www.custance.org)

Even at the time of Joseph those Hebrews descended from Abraham were becoming numerous in some areas. Both the Ishmaelites and the Midianites who purchased Joseph of his brethren, were Hebrew entities, descended from Abraham. No doubt other Hebrew groups had sprung up from the families of Abraham's father Terah, and the general area where these groups existed from Edom up into Mesopotamia, might thereby be termed Hebrew-Land. See the chart: The Founding of the Nations

To sum this matter up, it seems abundantly clear that the Hyksos were definitely a Semitic people, or led by those who were pre-dominantly Semitic, and that there was a Hurri element as well. Racially, they were very like the Israelites, and could be Hebrews of some sort, or were similar to Hebrews.

We feel that this racial data is so important to our study, that it should be summarized. To discover whence came the Hyksos, we find we must look for a people who can rightly be called any and all of the following:

a. Asiatic From an Egyptian point of view this meant that they were racially not Egyptians but foreigners and strangers from the east.

b. Barbarians The Egyptians considered the Hysksos as a people to be on a lower cultural plane than themselves.

c. Arabians This would be a people linked with the deserts of Arabia, as shepherds, Bedouin, nomads, etc.

d. Phoenicians Referring to Canaanites, either directly from the Land of Canaan or a related people.

e. Semites A people speaking a Semitic tongue; but with a Hurrian admixture.

f. Hebrew A people so like the Israelites that the two could be confused by a later Hebrew writer.

Each of these factors will be referred to later on in our search for the Hyksos homeland. Each will be accounted for.

No. 3 The Hyksos City "Avaris"
The first Hyksos King is said by Manetho to have been Salatis. The account runs that Salatis built himself a capital city named Avaris, somewhere east from Bubastis. It is described as being located east of the eastern arm of the Nile as it fans out in the Delta. For several years I and other historians have suggested that the city Avaris would be close to or in the desert area either in or not too far from the east side of the Delta towards the south-western corner of Palestine. Some historians have identified with Tanis, called Zoan in the Bible. (7)

The site of Tell el-Dab'a is currently thought to be the site of Avaris. In the mid 1960's, Dr. Manfred Bietak of the Austrian Institute in Cairo began to excavate his site, finding evidence of an extensive occupation by an intrusive non-Egyptian population which led him to identify the cultural objects he found as almost identical to Middle Bronze Age artifacts from Syria-Palestine. This in turn led to the belief that Tell el-Dab'a was the lost town-site of the Asiatic Hyksos peoples of Egyptian texts. Excavations have been continued by the Institute of Egyptology at the University of Vienna.

It is of interest in this connection to observe that the eastern border of Egypt has been considered by the majority of scholars to extend over the desert beyond the Isthmus of Suez as far as the Wady el 'Arish. They have held that this wadi, dry most of the year, is called "the river of Egypt" in many Bible passages, and they thus name it as the real boundary between Egypt and Canaan. On the other hand, H. Bar- Deroma in an article, "The River of Egypt (Nahal Mizraim)", (Palestine Exploration Quarterly, Jan.-June 1960, P. 37), studies the passages and gives sound reason to believe "the river of Egypt" is the Nile and or the eastern or Pelusaic arm thereof in the Delta in particular.

Somewhere in this vicinity, in the times of Moses and Joshua, lived the Avim or Avites (Deut.2:23; Josh.13:3). The name is phonetically similar to "Avaris," the Hyksos capital, but no connection has yet been shown.

When the Egyptians finally began to regain power, the Hyksos were besieged in this city of Avaris for an unknown length of time; it may have been a long, hard siege. When the city ultimately fell before the growing power of Pharaoh Ahmose I, the Hyksos lost all control of Egypt and had to retreat to the city of Sharuhen in Southern Palestine.

No. 4. The Hyksos had Horses
It is well known that the Hyksos kings had and used horses. Indeed, it is quite generally believed that it was the Hyksos who introduced the horse into Egypt, since pre-Hyksos monuments do not mention these animals while later monuments do. (

Sir Flinders Petrie, when excavating Hyksos graves in Southern Palestine at Tell el Ajjul, near Gaza, found that horses had been buried evidently with their owners. Certainly, the horses must have been loved and held in highest esteem by these men, to merit burial with their masters. (See, "A Pompeii of Southern Palestine" in "The Illustrated London News," June 20,1931, page 1050, also articles in the same journal under dates of May 14,1932, page 814, and July 9, 1932, page 57.)

Archaeologists have also discerned several cemeteries in Tell el-Dab'a belonging to the Second Intermediate Period during recent excavations. These burials date from late Dynasty XIII to the end of the Hyksos Period. One of the more remarkable finds is a mud brick vaulted tomb to the west of the main temple enclosure, which apparently belonged to a Hyksos warrior. He was buried with his weapons, a well-preserved copper sword (the earliest of its type found in Egypt) and dagger, as well as other grave-goods and offerings. In the entrance to the tomb the skeleton of his horse was found and next to the north-eastern wall the body of a young girl - thought to have been a servant, perhaps a sacrifice, who was interred at the time of her master's burial. A number of other horse-burials have recently been uncovered. (See the web site: Egyptian Monuments: http://www.egyptsites.co.uk/lower/delta/eastern/daba/daba.html) Whatever people we seek to identify as the Hyksos, they must be a people having horses.

No. 5. The Religion of the Hyksos
In the matter of religion it seems most evident that the later Hyksos Kings worshipped "Sutekh" or "Seth." (9) "This Egyptian name way be identified as the god "Baal" of the Phoenicians or Canaanites, or shall we say, one of the many "Baals" as local districts had their own "Baal-gods."

Breasted translates a folk-tale circulating in Egypt four hundred years later, which includes this statement concerning Apophis, one of the Hyksos Kings, "Now King Apophis made Sutekh his Lord serving no other god, who was in the whole land, save Sutekh. He built the temple in beautiful and everlasting work." One might think from this that some of the earlier Hyksos kings worshipped some other god either solely or as well as Sutekh, until King Apophis made Sutekh his Lord."

Nevertheless, it is certain Sutekh (or Baal) was one of their chief gods, and at times possibly their only god. What other god or gods they may have had before, the Egyptian records do not reveal.

Therefore, in our identification, we must look for a people who worshipped "Baal" in one form or another.

No. 6. The Date of the Hyksos Empire
The time that the Hyksos kings ruled in Egypt and the date of their great empire is well established in relation to Egyptian history of that period. It fills or nearly fills the time between the Middle Kingdom and the New Empire commencing with the Eighteenth Dynasty. We may say it occupies the gap between the XIIth and the XVIIIth Dynasties. The Hyksos kings for Dynasties XV and XVI.

The chronology of the XVIIIth Dynasty is relatively good, and links up well with Palestinian and Babylonian events both through written records (as monuments and the Amarna Letters) and by archaeological evidences.

Ahmose I, the first king of the XVIIIth Dynasty of Egypt, is the king who drove the Hyksos out of Egypt. The Pharaoh of the Exodus of Bible history, was either Amenhotep II, or Thutmose IV, (of the XVIIIth Dynasty), or Merneptab (of the XIXth Dynasty), by the most popular theories. This gives us a rough method of linking the time of the Hyksos Empire with Biblical history.

The collapse of the Hyksos Empire was about 160 years before Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV, and about 350 years before Merneptah; so we may say the fall of the Hyksos Empire was about 160 or 350 years before the Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt. Using the long chronology of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, that is, that they were in Egypt for 430 years (Exod.12:40-4l), we may put it that the Hyksos Empire existed while Israel sojourned in Egypt. More will be said on this later.

Bible scholars should note that there is no conflict between Exodus 12:40-41 and St. Paul's statement in Gal 3:17, if the emphasis is put on the word "confirmed" in St. Paul's statement. Then the Abrahamic Covenant was confirmed 430 years before the giving of the law, which confirmation would naturally be the last confirmation given to the Patriarchs. The last time God confirmed the Abrabamic Covenant to the Patriarchs, in a vision, was just before Jacob entered Egypt (Gen.46:l-4), from which confirmation we should measure 430 years to the giving of the law at Mount Sinai.

The existence and history of this great Hyksos Empire would not be forgotten by the time of Moses. Therefore, some reference to the Hyksos people and their kings would be quite natural in Moses' writings. Of course, such reference would be under a name known to the Hebrews, rather than under the odd, Egyptian name "Hyksos."

In writing his great book of origins, that is, The Book of Genesis, it does seem, as this study will later set forth, that Moses paused in his main story long enough to outline quickly and briefly, what his readers at that day would readily recognize as the origin of that elusive but great empire under the Hyksos kings.

Summary of Evidence to be Matched
Here, then, is the sum of the particular evidences regarding taken the Hyksos discovered from sources available to us; taken from tradition and gleaned from monument and archaeological findings. It presents us with a fairly definite picture, which we must see paralleled and reflected in the Biblical people we are to introduce in the following chapters in our attempt to unravel this exciting and unique puzzle handed to us from the past.

The Hyksos were:

1. Rulers of an empire, started before the invasion of Egypt and which, at its greatest, seems to have included Egypt, the Southern portions of Palestine, the North Sinai desert, and to have extended its influence, if not direct control, across Northern Arabia to the regions about the Euphrates River.

2. A Semitic people, closely akin to Hebrews and Arabians; allied or akin to the Canaanites (Phoenicians); yet possessing a quite noticeable Hurrian element.

3. A people who likely had a capital city before entering Egypt, yet preferred to set up a new capital city, Avaris, upon entering Egypt (to them a conquered land) thus forsaking, as a seat of government whatever capital they had previously.

4. A people who very early had horses, and used them extensively in warfare.

5. A people who worshipped Baal (Sutekh).

6. A people who attained the height of their power about 200 to 300 years before the Exodus of Israel from Egypt.

Our problem now is to see whether the Biblical people to be suggested can match every one of these six points, and whether there are any irresolvable differences or difficulties which might confute, annul, or weaken our proposed identification. The Bible does record one nation, and one alone, which appears to fit all the six points listed above. To the origin and early history of that nation we will now turn for close study.

End of Chapter One

[Sarah]

CHAPTER II
The Mixed Origin of the Edomites

"Or profane (common) person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright." Hebrews 12:16.

Much more space is given to the origins of the Edomites in the book of Genesis than to any other non-Israelite nation. There must be a reason for this. Ishmael's descendants for instance, are dismissed in just seven verses (Gen.25:l2-l8); all the nations of the Canaanites, so familiar to the Israelites, are disposed of in only six verses (Gen.10:15-20); but a whole chapter of no less than forty-three verses is devoted entirely to the origins of Edom (Gen. 36)

We naturally ask, why? Moses, whom we believe was the author or compiler constrained to turn from his main subject, and to give quite a lengthy, though most compact digression, covering the details of Esau's descendents, to tell of the people they intermingled with and overwhelmed, to catalog the early sheiks of this nation, and to list the first eight kings. This is a most striking fact, in an author who otherwise wrote right to the point, and who does not diverge from his main theme.

The obvious reason for this lengthy digression is that Esau's descendents, the Edomites, were looked upon at that time and in that time as of great national or international importance, a people not to be passed over lightly, the subject was something not to quickly missed and forgotten, but needed to be recorded and preserved for future reference. The statement is repeatedly made in Genesis 36, "Esau is Edom." Edom was therefore an important name in the day when the book of Genesis was written. It is pointedly stressed that this Esau, the brother of Jacob, was the progenitor of this important nation, Edom. Edom is thus accorded a very unusual place of distinction and significance.

If we are right in the theory that we are going to be put forth, then the origin of the Edomites would indeed call for more than usual attention at the hands of the ancient historian.

Now our theory is, in short, that the Hyksos kings were the Edomites. Preposterous? We think not. We seriously suggest that the Hyksos Empire was an early expansion of the Edomite Kingdom, assisted by associated and related peoples. An empire which bloomed and blossomed early, but as quickly faded, withered and perished from sight.

We feel there is much attractive suggestion and circumstantial evidence to support the theory, so much so that it becomes mentally difficult for us to reject this conclusion. It also seems to explain and shed light upon otherwise inexplicable passages of Scripture which indicate that Edom was looked upon as a strong nation at one time.

We will thus set forth this theory, explaining and listing the large array of points in its favor, and leave you, the reader to judge.

We will begin with the man Esau himself, tracing his story just as it has been handed down to us in the Bible.

Esau's Parentage
Esau is said to be the founder of the nation Edom. He was twin brother of Jacob, the son of the Patriarch Isaac, and grandson of Abraham "the Hebrew" (Gen.14: 13). All of these men were "shepherds" Racially Esau was an "Hebrew," a Semitic person.

Esau's mother was Rebekah. She was an industrious woman, who in her youth, without hesitation single handedly undertook the watering of a camel caravan, and camels can be quite thirsty! She readily forsook her father's home in the city of Nahor in Northern Mesopotamia (Gen 24:10) to marry a man she had never seen, but whom she knew to be a worshipper of one God and the one and only God, to the entire exclusion of all other gods. He was the inheritor of certain peculiar promises and covenants of that God; whose name was (translated in the Authorized Version of the English Bible) "Jehovah." Her father was Bethuel, the "Syrian" (Gen24:l5; 28:5), son of Nahor, the brother of Abraham. Bethuel lived in or near the city of Haran (Gen 29:4) where also Abraham himself had resided for a number of years after leaving the city of Ur (Gen.11: 27-32) . (10)

It appears to us to be a major error to imagine that the Semitic Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were mere wandering nomads of little or no significance in the world of their day. Such views are sometimes expressed. In the Biblical account they are definitely pictured as men of high social standing and as men of influence, importance and of considerable wealth and power. They are set forth more in the nature of princes who had renounced their former national connections with the great, powerful cities of Ur and Haran; and who consequently had no country or people to which they any longer owed allegiance. Forsaking city life they deliberately chose a nomadic way of living, "looking for" a future city" which God would give them.

Abraham's brother Nahor appears to be the progenitor of a people occupying the general region around Haran. This name, Nahor actually appears upon ancient cuneiform tablets referring to this district. Egyptian monuments not many generations after the times of the Patriarchs refer to the "Naharain" in the region of Northern Mesopotamia.

Again, Laban, Jacob's uncle, seems to be a man of wealth and of power. Indications are he was of unusual importance, as his name seems to be remembered throughout a wide area in Syria. It seems to be preserved in the name of the mountain range and nation name of "Lebanon." Unimportant people do not usually have the distinction of having districts and mountains, etc., named after them.

The peoples of Mesopotamia had their own written records and their traditions regarding their ancestors. Had these early Hebrew stories regarding their ancestors in Mesopotamia been pure fiction, or had they no genuine relationship to the men of Nahor and to Laban, surely the Hebrew accounts would have been "laughed out of court" by the men of those days. The fact that the Biblical accounts survived as sober history seems to indicate that these accounts were accepted then and received no serious challenge. The claims of the Hebrews must have conformed to common knowledge at the time. Thus, we seem confronted by evidence that the families from which the Hebrews of the Bible originated were prominent and of no mean standing. It follows that Abraham would be well educated and not an insignificant nomad.

Those who hold that the names in the Biblical record such as "Terah" and "Nahor" refer only to tribes or clans of those names, (11) and not to genuine personalities, still must in fairness to that record, concede that such tribes or clans must have been very important and powerful, because their names stand out on clay tablets, and became attached to places, mountains, etc. Thus, even if we were to view these Hebrew stories as personifying tribes and clans, we still are forced to much the same conclusions. The Hebrews originated from persons (or tribes) of importance and power.

Now look at Abraham himself. His retinue and followers, when he first came into the Land of Canaan, constituted an element of such military significance that the Amorites of Mamre (a place later called Hebron) found it to their advantage to become his confederates (Gen. l4:13-14). Abraham called them to the war against Chedorlaomer, a mighty king of Elam. No little nomad would undertake such a war.

Melchizedek, King of Salem, highly honored Abraham (Gen. 14:18-19). We have to notice, too, that Lot, Abraham's nephew, very quickly rose to a seat of authority and recognition in the city of Sodom, a prize of such wealth and prosperity that Chedorlaomer traveled many, many miles with his army to secure. The very early advance Philistine settlement at Gerar (the great Philistine immigration came generations later), feared the military strength of both Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 21:22-32; 26:16, 23-33). To the Hittites, Abraham was a prince. (Gen. 23.6). All this points to a man of distinction and power. Of such an illustrious, Semitic family came Esau, the father of the Edomites.

Esau's Great Mistake
Early in life Esau manifested a materialistic tendency. He showed a low esteem of the spiritual values wrapped up in that covenant which God had made with his grandfather Abraham; a covenant involving blessing to the whole earth through a promised "Seed" (the Lord Jesus Christ), as well a numerous "seed" or posterity, and ultimate possession of all the Land of Canaan. Esau was more concerned with the immediate and the present, not with promises which were "afar off" and on which Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Rebekah set so much store (Heb.11:13). This trait of character came up in the famous "mess of pottage" incident. Esau despised his birthright by selling it to his twin brother Jacob for food when he was hungry and famished. The food was material and the birthright was "spiritual."

God held Esau to his foolish bargain. Later God permitted the wily Jacob, by a lie, to steal the prophetic blessing also which the aged and blind Isaac still purposed to give to his favorite son Esau, despite his knowledge that the "elder shall serve the younger." For this theft Jacob indeed paid dear in later life, reaping a terrible harvest in his sons who, in turn, lied to and deceived him for a number of years concerning his favorite son Joseph. How well the sons learned of their father!

Esau was terrifically angry at the loss of his father's blessing, as it included certain promises of material gain such as he craved. However, he found no way of repentance (Heb.12:16-17), and became thereafter an everlasting example of the tragedy of a fatal, wrong choice which cannot be remedied.

He typifies, in the Book of Hebrews those who despise the gain of Heaven through Jesus Christ, and choose instead "the mess of pottage" of this present world.

So extreme was Esau's anger that he began to plot the murder of his twin brother. Jacob, thereupon fled, and for twenty years was absent from the Land of Canaan, becoming a stranger living at Haran in Mesopotamia.

During this twenty year period, Esau and Jacob each amassed additional great wealth in cattle and lesser livestock. Then Jacob returned to Palestine. When the brothers met, Esau was pacified; the two were happily reconciled, and the old hatred was put away. Hereafter we hear of no further trouble between them.

Esau's Marriages
At the age of forty, before Jacob stole the blessing, Esau had married two wives, both Hitties, be it noted, of the Canaanite nations. This was a direct flouting of the family's sacred traditions. It was another clear demonstration of a basic despising of the religion of his father and grandfather, which religion forbade such ties with the Canaanites. Isaac especially loved Esau, but Esau cared not for his father's wishes; he did not as fully return that love. Esau was obviously seeking immediate material and social advantages for himself alone by thus joining affinity with prominent Hittite families. As we shall see later, he was quite successful in gaining such material and social advantage, but the price was the utter and final loss of the spiritual birthright, for thereafter it is written by God over his life, "Esau have I hated" (Romans 9:13; Mal 1:2)

Some people are sorely puzzled over the account of Esau's wives and have even questioned the accuracy of the text. The follow paragraphs, besides helping our study, may clear up the seeming contradictions of many of our readers.

Esau's First Wife, Judith-Abolibamah
Esau's first wife was Judith. She was the daughter of Beeri, a Hittite. In Genesis 36: 2 this woman is called also "Aholibamah." It was very common in those days for persons to bear more than one name. Almost endless examples could be cited, such as Abram = Abraham; Sarai = Sarah; Jacob = Israel; Esau = Edom; Ben-oni = Benjamin; Zaphnath paneah = Joseph; and so on. So also this woman is known by two names, Judith = Aholibamah. For the sake of our study, we will use the first name, Judith.

Judith's mother was Anah, and Anah was the daughter of Zibeon, a Hivite (Gen.36:2). This woman Anah is not to be confused with a man named Anah, of whom we shall speak later. Thus Judith, while Hittite on her father's side (Gen.26:34), was Hivite on her mother's. By marrying her, Esau smartly obtained family connections with both the Hittites (the children of Heth) and the Hivites, two prominent Canaanite nations.

From Esau's point of view, looking for material and social advantage, he had made a brilliant move, but not so in God's sight. It was Esau's fall. God turned from him, and from then on God's hand was directed toward Jacob in protection, guidance, and discipline, to make him the grand character he became in later life.

From this marriage three children were born in the Land of Canaan, named, Jeush, Jaelam, and Korah. All three became sheiks in the later Edomite government (Gen.36:5, 18), but they do not appear to rank as high or to have been as prominent as the children of Esau's other wives. In fact, in listing the sheiks derived from Esau in Genesis 36:15-19, this wife, and her children are given last place, as being in honor of a lower rank than the others.


Esau's Second Wife, Bashemath-Adah
Esau's second wife, (though he appears to have married both women at about the same time, Gen.26:34) was Bashemath or Adah. (Another instance of dual names.) She was the daughter of Elon, a Hittite. In Genesis 36: 10 this woman is named first in rank, and so evidently became Esau's chief wife.

Her only named son is Eliphaz. He is called Esau's "firstborn" Gen. 36:16), so was evidently older than Esau's other children. This name "Eliphaz" should be kept in mind, as we will speak of this son in a later chapter
.
This marriage also linked Esau with the Hittites of Canaan.

Esau's Third Wife, Mahalath-Bathshemath
Esau's third wife was taken much later than the other two. After Jacob had fled to Haran, Esau came to better realize how really displeasing to his father and mother were his Canaanitish wives, and that his marriages, made for personal advantage, lay largely at the bottom of the loss of that blessing he now coveted. In a desperate effort to remedy an already hopeless and lost case, he went true to form, and again resorted to scheming a marriage to get what he wanted.

Did ever any man so debase the ideal of marriage as Esau! So he planned his third marriage, this time to a Semitic woman not of the Canaanites.

The Canaanites lay under the curse of utter destruction, in the religion of his family (Gen.16:l6). Therefore, Esau now sought a woman linked racially and religiously with his father's people. Evidently he hoped that both he and the children from such a marriage could yet inherit the blessing of Abraham. He may have thought that he could force God to let him inherit it, if he could but succeed in his plan to murder Jacob. Jacob was unmarried as yet. If Jacob died childless, the blessing would have to revert to himself. Esau foresaw, however, that even with Jacob dead and out or the way, he would still have trouble because or his Hittite wives, whose children could not come into this distinctively Hebrew blessing. To overcome the obstacle he negotiated this third marriage, taking this time a Hebrew wife. He would create a Hebraic line of descent which could inherit the blessing of Abraham.

So it was he went eastward into the Arabian Desert to the young, growing tribe of Ishmael, Abraham's eldest son, and married Mahalath or Bathshemath, Ishmael's daughter (Gen. 28:6-9). She was, in fact, his step-cousin.

However, Bathshemath, this third wire, although a Hebrewess, was not pure Hebrew. It is true, she had no Canaanite blood in her, but in actuality she was three-quarter Egyptian, since both her mother and her grandmother Hagar were Egyptian women (Gen. 21:21). The important point to Esau was her Hebrew connections, and that she was not Canaanite.

This woman had but one son, named Ruel (Gen. 36:4, 10). We will refer to Ruel again.

The Racial Mixture of the Edomites
From the foregoing we can see that in their origin the Edomites, the descendents of Esau, were a mixture of Hebrew, Hittite, Hivite, Ishmaelite (that is, Arabian) and Egyptian stock. But that is not all! As we shall see later, the Edomites intermingled with the Horites at an early date. The Horites were a settled people of the north east part of the Sinai Peninsula, lying easterly from Lower Egypt.

Now, turning back to the Egyptian references to the Hyksos people we find an astonishing parallel and similarity between the Hyksos and the Edomites.

1. Both are Semites (Semitic language and names).
2. Both have Hebrew characteristics.
3. Both have Hittite traits.
4. Both appear to have been Shepherds (after Manetho).
5. Both are Arabians. (Ishmael = Northern Arabia.)
6. Both lived easterly from Lower Egypt.

The resemblance is close if not exact, and certainly is most remarkable. Where else can we find so complete a similarity? None of the strictly Canaanite entities seem to fit points 2 and 5. The Moabites and the Ammonites do not, as far as we know, fit with points 3 and 5. Arabian tribes beyond Edom do not seem to fit point 3.

Only Edom seems to fit at all points with what we know of the Hyksos.

One wonders how two separate peoples could be so racially and linguistically alike! The thought can scarcely be resisted that instead of two peoples, we are viewing one entity, whose description has come down to us through two separate channels and under different names. One channel is the Egyptian sources, under the name "Hyksos" the other channel is the Biblical or Hebrew sources, under the name "Edom."

But as yet we still do not have proof; only the suggestion, the thought, the possibility. Do we have anything stronger? Yes, we do. Most striking as the foregoing similarity surely is, we have next to set forth the indications of the tremendous growth of the Edomite Kingdom and point out how it appears to dovetail into the Hyksos story.

End of Chapter Two

[Sarah]

CHAPTER III
The Birth of the Kingdom of Edom

"I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it" Jer. 18: 9.



After Jacob returned from Reran in Padan-aram, at which time he and Esau were reconciled, events began to move rapidly (Gen.32-33). Jacob sojourned for a short while near the city of Shechem (Gen.33 18-20). Esau had part of his extensive herds and flocks in "Seir" that is, in the country on the south and south-east of Canaan including the wilderness comprising the north-east portion of the Sinai Peninsula (Gen.32:3, 33:14, 16), while the rest of his herds and flocks were with his father Isaac at Beersheba in southern Canaan.

A quarrel soon arose between Jacob's family and the Hivites in the city of Shechem, which ended with Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob's sons leading a furious, surprise attack on the city and slaying all the adult men. The wealth of the city was seized, and the women and children carried captive (Gen .34: 25-29). Jacob was much disturbed over this, fearing all the surrounding Canaanites tribes or nations would unite to attack him with overwhelming odds (Gen. 34:30).

This particular incident gives us an insight into the large number of "servants" held by Jacob and the military strength of his followers and of the Patriarchs generally. Jacob had enough men at his bidding to have no particular fear of any single Canaanite tribe, but this military act of his angry sons might be expected to incite such a united attack as he could not withstand.

God restrained such an attack from coming. One element that might have had a bearing would be the fear the Canaanites felt of reprisals from Jacob's powerful relatives his father Isaac, his brother Esau, and even the more distant relatives in Haran. In any event, "the terror of God" fell upon the Canaanite cities and they left Jacob and his followers alone (Gen. 35:5).

Jacob hurriedly began moving his whole retinue and his flocks and herds southward to be nearer Isaac and Esau. He paused at Beth-el and then moved on southwards. Finding he was not perused, he established his headquarters for a while near Edar. Then he continued on southward and came finally to Beersheba where Isaac lived, physically feeble, advanced in age and blind, yet evidently mentally alert, controlling, and directing the business affairs of his own great cattle herds.

A new problem now arose. Jacob and Esau each had great herds. The combined consumption of pasture was more than the area could provide. There was not enough grass. However, no strife or quarrel took place between the reconciled brothers. A satisfactory solution was arrived at.

Esau Does Right
Mellowed, Jacob seems to now take over the leadership of the family. Isaac, greatly handicapped by loss of sight and evidently weak and frail in body, hands over to Jacob the family authority and the priesthood, and his own possessions and wealth. Jacob thus is acknowledged to hold that religious title to the promised, ultimate possession of the Land of Canaan, handed down from its first recipient Abraham. Esau took his servants and his herds away, out of the Land of Canaan altogether, from the territory he now rightly recognized as assigned to his twin brother, and moved everything southward into "Seir" (Gen. 36:6-7). In this Esau did right, and the prosperity that thereafter came upon the Edomites, as we shall see, may have been partly God's reward for Esau's right act in this case, though nothing could undo his former act or restore what he had forever lost.

The Horites
In this country of Seir there lived a people called "Horites" or "Horims." Esau's family, the Edomites, began to intermarry with them, of which we will tell more presently. First let us consider these Horites. Who were they?

Now, the Horites for many centuries have been entirely unknown to scholars outside of the few references to them in the Bible. The Horites were thought to be just a little desert tribe, insignificant and rather unimportant, or, after the rise of the higher critical views, could even be considered to be nothing more than fable, a product of the imagination of the Biblical writer's mind. This was so until in recent years the archaeologist's spade began to unearth simply astounding information about them. We are at last finding out the truth. Today we are now beginning to view them in an utterly different light. We realize the Horites were a most important and far reaching factor in early times, but were later completely forgotten except for what the Bible preserved to us. This point alone demonstrates for us both the great the importance and real value of the Biblical records, and that the Biblical record does indeed reach back an exceedingly long way into forgotten history. What the Bible has done in preserving a memory of the Horites, it may (we say, it has) done in still earlier records which the present modern and liberal schools of thought think are only myths and vague uncertain traditions.

Thanks to the diligent activities of archaeologists and scholars, the Horites have been brought to light. We find frequent mention of them on ancient monuments and in clay tablets. The Egyptians called one district southerly of Canaan by the name, "Khar." This is evidently "Hor" It reminds us of Mount Hor in the region of Seir where the Horites lived. The references to these people in the clay tablets was formerly translated "Harri," but is now more correctly given as "Hurri," a phonetically close equivalent of "Hori" (Gen.36:22).

The Horites living south of Canaan, as we learn from the Bible account, were under the leadership of a family, the descendants of a man named "Seir the Horite" (Gen.36:20). The district was presumable known as "Seir" after his name. They were the inhabitants of the country in Abraham's time, and were looked upon as such important allies of the king of Sodom that Chedorlaomer the king of Elam felt the need of defeating them first before he could safely attack Sodom itself (Gen. 14:1-7). The region called "Mount Seir" at that time apparently extended westward as far as El-paran (possibly "Nakl" near the centre of the Sinai Peninsula), beyond which lay the Wilderness of Shur, stretching to the borders of Egypt (Gen.14:6).

"Paran" means "Place of Caverns," and "Horites" means "Cave Dwellers" according to older Bible Dictionaries, which produce a happy harmony of meanings, at least. But there is now a great doubt on this point. Dr. Merrilll F. Unger, in his book, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Archaeological Discoveries," (Zondervan Publishing House, l957 states on page 74: "This unknown people used to be thought of as a very local and restricted group of cave-dwellers, the name Horite being derived from Hebrew hor, ('hole' or 'cave')... As a result of the discovery of the Hurrians, the popular etymology which connects them with troglodytes, or cave dwellers, has generally been abandoned." However, we here need to step cautiously, as we do not yet know what the state of their cu1ture was or the type of dwelling used by those Horites living in Seir south of Canaan. It is important, however to notice that the whole region of Nabataea and much of the Negev is filled with thousands of shallow caved, and that many of these caves were used as dwellings throughout the centuries, up until only a few years ago.

One important point we should notice is that in the earliest times "Mount Seir" seems to be in the mountainous region west of the Arabah Valley.

Later the term is used of both sides of the Arabah Valley, and more recently many have confined it to the east side only. This helps explain how it is that the names "Paran" "Seir" and "Sinai" are synonymous with "Horeb," the Mount of the Law (Deut. 33: 2; Hab. 3: 3). The statement that there are eleven days journey from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea "by way of Mount Seir" (Deut.l:2) is seen to be quite natural, if "Mount Seir" included the ring of mountains about the southern edge of the desert plateau of Sinai, known to the Arabs as Jebel el Tih. These mountains have to be passed when going from Sinai to southern Canaan where Kadesh-barnea was located.

A Horite Kingdom
Archaeology has revealed that there was a Hurrian (Horite) Kingdom in Mesopotamia. It was east of the Kingdom of Mitanni. Mitanni occupied land on both sides of the Euphrates River north of Carchemish (12) The Hurri and the Mitanni, we learn, were closely related peoples, and these in turn were related to the Hittites of Asia Minor. (See "Archeology and the Bible" by George A. Barton, Ph.D.) The language of the Hurri is said to be not Indo-European. As Bible students would say, it is not "Japhetic," not of the nations descending from Japheth, the elder son of Noah.

Neither, it seems, is the Hurri language to be classed as Semitic. Hence, it appears it would be Hamitic, using the word "Hamitic" in its broadest sense as including all languages which are neither Indo-European nor Semitic. The Bible does not state where the Horites came from, but the inference from the language of the Hurri is that they came from Ham, Noah's younger son.

That the Horites were not confined to the above mentioned kingdom, the archaeologists have found to their surprise. The Bible itself tells of the one group of these people south of Canaan. But mention of the Hurri or Horites is cropping up in unexpected places in Assyria and Babylonia. In the city Nuzu, near modern Kirkuk in Iraq, the Hurrians became a very strong element soon after 1800 B.C. In fact, they seem to dominate much of the Near East at that time. Again about 131 Hurrian clay tablets were found under the ruins of a temple at Shimshara in the Dokan Plain. (See "The Christian" London England, Aug. 30, 1957, page 2.)

In 1958 a Danish expedition examined a Hurrian settlement in Northern Iraq, near Sulaimaniya. This settlement appears to date from about 2000 B.C. down to about 1500 B.C. This is the very period of history with which our study deals. It ties in nicely with our theory.

These two peoples, Esau's family the Edomites and the leading Horite family of Seir, began to intermarry. Eliphaz, Esau's eldest son, married Timna the sister of Lotan and the daughter of Seir (Gen.36: 12,20, 22). From this marriage to a Horitess was born Amalek. He grew up to become a sheik of Edom and is considered to be the progenitor of the Amalekites. According to this view, the Amalekites would have originally been a tribe of Edom. (Some people have suggested that the Amalekites might have been the Hyksos, but, as we shall show later, the Amalekites were simply a sub-tribe of the larger Edomites during the time that is in question.) (For more information see the website: Chronologically Helpful Parallels between the Hyksos and the Amalekites http://www.specialtyinterests.net/hyksos.html#amada)

The Amalekites inhabited some parts of the desert plateau of Sinai, previously occupied by the Horites as we have seen. Now in Genesis 14:7 we read that Chedorlaomer smote the country of the Amalekites when it appears that the Amalekites had not come into existence at the time. The simple explanation is that the account refers to the country occupied by the Amalekites at the time Genesis was written. In just the same way we might say the American Indians were roaming over Canada before Columbus set sail, when there was no such country as Canada then. We mean, of course, what is Canada now. Just so, the author of Genesis meant that Chedorlaomer smote the county to which the Amalekites later gave their name: he did not state that the Amalekites were smitten, which would have been an error. Horites most likely occupied it then.

The Egyptians had no "L"
The Egyptians had no initial "L" in their language. (13) In this they were in a difficulty similar to the Chinese, who, contrariwise, dislike beginning a word with "R." Most Chinese people feels they must substitute another sound, so uses "L" instead of "R," until they master the unfamiliar sound. Thus they tend to call a red rock a "led lock." In exactly the reverse manner the Egyptians substituted "R" for "L" in foreign names.

The Horite name Lotan came difficult to the Egyptian scribe. Dr. Barton tells us they substituted "R" for "L" and called it "Rutenu." This name is found in records of the time of the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt (2000 B.C. to 1788 B.C.), proving that the name "Lotan" was then in use. Indeed, the name "Upper Rutenu" seems to indicate highlands in Syria, while "Lower Rutenu" appears to apply to some district in the general region which is assigned in the Bible to the Horites, where Lotan was a leader. Thus there can be little doubt that "Lower Rutenu" in the Egyptian records refers to the district of the "Lotan" of Genesis 36: 12, 20, 22).

It is to be noted that this name Rutenu or Lotan is used in the Tale of Sinuhe, during the reign of Sesostris I of the XIIth Dynasty, about 1950 B.C. This demonstrates that the name was in use at that time.

During the XVIIIth Dynasty we meet with a new name for the Bedouin from Asia, the "Shasu." The Department of Egyptian Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City informed the Americana Institute of Canada, in response to my enquiry, that it did not know of earlier references to "Shasu" than those of the first half of the XVIIIth Dynasty. Several authorities in their works on Egypt had used the term "Shasu" in reference to earlier periods.

However this appears to be the mistake of reading back into an earlier period a name belonging strictly to a later one. The fact is the Shasu appear first in Egyptian history about 1500 BC. They are not known earlier, and it may be presumed were not there in the deserts east of Lower Egypt very much earlier than that date. Evidently the Shasu were newcomers.

If one will take the time to examine maps covering the region of Edom, as put out by various Egyptologists, it will be found that the names for Edom ("Seir," "Aduma" etc.) are very curiously pushed hither and yon about the country to make room for the name "Shasu," which is frequently splashed generously around the whole region from the Isthmus of Suez to the Arabian Desert east of Moab, including all the northerly part of the Sinai Peninsula to the southern parts of Palestine. Yet with all this crowding of the one name upon the other, it does not appear to have occurred to any that the two might refer to the same peoples! While we do not claim positive identification, yet it appears feasible that the Sashu are either the Edomites or a name inclusive of Edomites, Amalekites, Ishmaelites, and possibly Midianites. The word "Shasu" means "plunderers" and "robbers," an epithet befitting their characteristic of extracting heavy tolls of all passengers through those regions. But in any case, it is striking to note that "Rutanu" (Lotan) has been replaced by "Shasu" somewhere between XIIth Dynasty times and the XVIIIth Dynasty, just as the Bible states the Horites were replaced by the Edomite shepherds about that time.

Having now joined affinity with the Hurri or Horites of Seir, the Edomites began to become a quite powerful force. Rapidly they budded into a new, small kingdom. We must next look into their king-list, as it contains astonishing hints and implications of growth.

The Early Date of the King List
That the Kingdom of Edom was formed soon after Esau moved all his possessions into Seir, is evidenced by the genealogy of Jobab the second king in the king-list. Of this king we shall have much to say later. We trace his genealogy thus.

One of Esau's later sons was Ruel, born before Esau finally left Canaan (Gen.36:4). Ruel's mother, as we mentioned before, was Mahalath or Bathshemath, a daughter of Ishmael. Ishmael was the progenitor of a number of tribes inhabiting Northern Arabia (Gen.25:13-16). Thus Ruel was part Arabian, that is, part Ishmaelite.

Ruel had four sons. All became sheiks of Edom: the name of the second being Zerah (Gen.36:13, 17). A little further on Zerah is named as the father of Jobab, the second king of Edom (Gen.36:33). Linking these together we find that the second king was great-grandson to Esau.

On this basis, the Edomite king-list given in Genesis belongs to a very early period of Edomite history. The first king, Bela, would be a contemporary, we may well assume, of Zerah the grand- son of Esau. In other words, if Esau enjoyed a life about as long as his twin brother Jacob, he may possibly have seen the first king reigning, or it might be the first king was chosen when Esau, the leader died.

"Before Any King over Israel"
The Edomite king-list opens with the words:
"And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." (Gen.36:31.)

This statement is not necessarily a reference to the setting up of the Israelite monarchy under King Saul, many centuries later. Many Bible scholars feel the two events are altogether too far separated in history to have any bearing upon one another. The events are recorded in different books and by different writers. No, such an understanding and application of the words we have quoted misses entirely the whole significance that was in the writer's mind when he wrote them, overlooking the very point which made Israel, even before the Conquest of Canaan, such a "peculiar people," in the eyes of all other nations. Everyone can see that the writer of the stories of Jacob and Joseph in the book of Genesis was passionately monotheistic, one who believed with all his heart and soul in One Lord God and in the worship of that one God alone. His words absolutely must not be viewed apart from that primary and deep-seated conviction.

Now early Israel, after the Exodus, considered itself to be a kingdom, yet without an earthly or human king. In many countries and nations (14) even down to Japan in recent times, the people viewed their king as their god. It was not so in ancient Israel: their God was their King (Deut.33:5; Judges 8:22-2:3; I. Sam.8:7). The God of Israel had not merely created the heaven and the earth, a far-off, dim event of the past, (and an act more or less claimed for a multiplicity of heathen deities,) but this God had delivered them from Egypt and had defeated and brought low all the power and pride of a Pharaoh of the XVIIIth Dynasty of Egypt. They Pharaoh's of that Dynasty as its zenith were recognized everywhere as the greatest and most powerful monarchs on earth in their day, and claimed to be gods. No wonder this deliverance from Egypt was Israel's glory, the event more often spoken of than any other in all their history. This God of gods, this Supreme 'Being' dwelling in their midst in a cloudy pillar and was Israel's unique King from the day they marched victoriously out of Egypt. For centuries thereafter, Israel could not tolerate the idea of a human king.

Realizing this truth, one can see that the statement the Edomite kings reigned before any king reigned over Israel, simply means that they reigned before the Exodus, that is before Israel came under her glorious King, the God of their fathers and before Israel entered into a blood-covenant with God so that he became the actual, recognized ruler of the nation.

"The Last shall be First"
How different the case was with Edom which had lost the Abrahanic Covenant, and slowly drifted away from the Abrahamic traditions and worship. Edom got her kingdom first, long before the Israelites. The Israelites got a promised blessing, the Abrahamic Covenants, consisting largely of promises, not present possessions. The Israelites had lingered 400 weary years in Egypt without a king. This pattern is often seen down through history. God's people, holding to God's promises, see other prosper and rise to enviable position, while they themselves need to patiently wait and abide God's time. Consider:

(l) Esau made advantageous marriages with the Canaanites; Jacob was restrained from this

(2) Esau mingled with the Horites and gained a country (Seir) for himself: Jacob had to remain a stranger and a pilgrim, a sojourner to the day of his death

(3) Edom soon developed into a little kingdom: Israel moved into Egypt by the sufferance of the reigning Pharaoh

(4) Edom progressed into an empire (as we shall see): Israel was reduced to slavery.

All the advantages seemed to be on the side of those who had lost the Covenant. Those who missed the blessing were blessed: those who gained the blessing were miserable slaves! Yet the day finally came when Moses and the Children of Israel sang victoriously:

The people shall hear, and be afraid:
Sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina,
Then the sheiks of Edom shall be amazed." (Exodus 14:14-15)

The final victor is the real victor: final blessing is the only blessing.

Even so today. The true church of Christ must be patient. The ones who seek immediate, temporal power, rulership, and a kingdom, lose the blessing even while they think they are blessed with the prospering of their schemes and plans. Those who, contrariwise, embrace the promises and wait patiently for Christ, may be persecuted and despised, and may continue sometimes under sufferance of the world's kings and rulers, or be crushed in prison or concentration camp; yet the day will come when Christ will deliver his own, and the true church will reign with Christ for ever. This is the teachings of the scriptures.

The First King, Bela

"And Bela the son of Beor reigned in Edom: and the name of his city was Dinhabah." Gen 36:32

We have seen that Edom was formed into a kingdom at a very early date, possibly even within Esau's life time. Bela could easily be a contemporary of Ephraim and Manasseh, Joseph's sons in Egypt. By the time Joseph's sons were grown to manhood, Bela may well have already begun his reign as King of Edom, with a number of sheiks under him.

This king Bola, we are told, was the son of Beor. Beor is a name we do not find among Esau's descendents, nor yet in the family of Seir the Horite who occupied the country prior to the coming of Esau's family and followers. It is therefore quite possible that Bela was not an Edomite, nor a local Horite by descent, but someone raised to the position of kingship by the united consent of the sheiks of the Edomites and the Horites.

Balaam the soothsayer, about five hundred years later, is also called "the son of Beor" (Num 22.5). Of course, if that Beor was the immediate father of Balaam, then we have no indication of any connection with the father of King Bela. However, if Beor was an ancestral father of Balaam, (just as the Lord Jesus is called "son of David" though 1,000 years intervened,) then it is possible that both references are to the same person. In that case, this Beor would be a person of great and unusual importance, whom Balaam would especially claim as an illustrations ancestor, thereby to add to his own reputation and influence. He seems to strive to do that very thing in his last two prophetic utterances to Balak, King of Moab, opening his parabolic speeches with emphasis on this ancestral connection, using the words, "Balaam the son of Beor hath said..." (Num.24.3, 15).

Thus it is just possible that Beor, the father of Edom's first king, was some great and widely honored figure of those far off days. If that should be so the location of Dinhabah, the city of King Bela, could be either in Edom or near the River Euphrates like the home of Balaam. Then it likely would be also the home of Balaam's ancestral father Beor (Num. 22: 5; 23:7). However, this is speculation, and may not be so.

The Destruction of the Horites
A very difficult problem is the question as to just where in the history of Edom are we to place the destruction of the Horites or Hurrians. The event is recorded in Deuteronomy 2:12 where the Horites are called Horims.

"The Horims also dwelt in Seir before time; but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them."

The conquest by Israel referred to here, was, of course, the Israelite conquest described in the context; the conquest of the lands east of the Jordan River where Sihon King of Heshbon and Og King of Bashan ruled. These Amorite kings were slain by Moses and the children of Israel who possessed and divided the land between the tribe of Reuben, the tribe of Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh. This conquest is spoken of shortly before and is fully described immediately after the verse we have quoted (Deut1:4; 2:24 to 3:2) notice especially the following words; "begin to possess it" Sihon;s land 2:24; "Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee, begin to possess that thou may inherit his land" (2:31) "This land which we possessed at that time" 3:13; "The Lord your God hath given you this land to possess it" (3:18) it therefore follows that the land of Israel's possession referred to in 2:12 is not the Land of Canaan taken by Joshua, but the lands east of Jordan taken by Moses.

In a somewhat similar way, the Edomites had previously destroyed the Hurri or Horites. But just when did they do so? Did the Edomites destroy them before the first king, Bela the son of Beor, was crowned? Would they crown a king before possessing a country for his kingdom?

Or did the Horites and Edomites unite to crown the first king and the destruction of the Horites follow at a later time? We simply do not know, because the record does not say. Striking, confirmatory and helpful as the archaeological evidence is, neither does it settle the matter. Nevertheless, let us consider what the archaeologists have to tell us.

Somewhere about the twenty-third century B.C. large, bronze-age cities were established along the great north-south highway which ran through the Transjordan plateau on the east side of the Jordan Valley and of the Dead Sea. This flourishing Bronze Age civilization very suddenly ended. Various authorities appear to differ as to the date. M. E. Kirk ("Outline of Ancient Cultural History of Transjordan," in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly, July-Oct. 1944, p.18l) gives it as "about the end of the twentieth century BC," others have suggested later dates, down to about 1700 BC.

Then follows a long period of about 400 to 600 years of nomadic occupation. Of this Kirk continues: "The land was derelict. No sherds of that dark age appear, because nomadic people do not use much else beside skin vessels and gourds. Of city life there was none."

About the beginning of the thirteenth century BC city life in these regions begins to re-appear, and we meet the Iron Age kingdoms familiar to us from Biblical record, Edom, Moab and Ammon of the time of the kings of Israel.

We feel that this evidence exactly parallels the Bible story. In what follows we may fly in the face of the interpretations of the archaeological evidence as given by a number of authorities, but we believe our view is not only in full harmony with the discovered facts, but will commend itself as reasonable, and as fitting perfectly the sequence of events handed down to us by the Hebrews in their records and stories.

The Bronze Age civilization, we suggest, is that of the Zamzummims, Emims, and Horites (Deut.2:20, 10, 12). The Zamzummims and the Emims were destroyed by the Ammonites and Moabites respectively, and the Horites by the Edomites (Deut.2:9, 12, 2l-22). These new possessors, be it noted, being all nomadic descendants of Abraham. They lived in tents, and kept large herds of cattle and sheep. This is especially evident from the story of Esau with his flocks and herds who moved into Seir, as we have recounted.

The suggestion by some that the pre-Edomite Horites were some of these nomads seems to us contradiction to what we know of the Hurri or Horites elsewhere. The archaeological evidence is that the Hurri were not nomads but city- dwellers. They belong to the Bronze Age culture preceding the nomadic occupation we are dealing with.

It has been suggested that the disappearance of the Bronze Age civilization in Transjordan and the sudden nomadic occupation is likely connected in some way with the Hyksos invasion of Egypt.

In that we heartily agree. It is all one story. This nomadic occupation was a powerful one, that is, these nomads were strong warriors. They were a military factor of importance just as we have discerned from the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Chapter II. This Bedouin occupation in Kirk's opinion, "must have been strong enough to frustrate the attempts of any settled communities to enter the country."

We suggest that it was during this strong nomadic occupation that the Edomite nomads rose to first place, established a wide desert empire, burst in upon Egypt as the "Hyksos", and when expelled fell back to Edom, where but little "city" life existed. They were thus forced back into a nomadic existence again.

By 1400 BC they were beginning to settle, down, and soon thereafter turned more and more to agriculture and mining, and thus set up the Iron Age kingdoms the archaeologists have noted. This picture fits all the facts, it seems to us.

However it is to be noted that the Horites had sheiks "among" the Edomite sheiks at the beginning (Gen.36:29-30). This seems to prove a large measure of friendliness and union between the two peoples at that time. It must have been a little later that quarrels arose and children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead. (Deut.2:l2

Thenceforth, the Edomites dominated the kingdom, and all remaining Horites in the territory would be absorbed into the general population of the new kingdom, adding one more blood strain, a very definite Hurri element, into the already racial mixture comprising the "Edomites." This blood strain was related to the Hittites, making the link between Edomites and Hitties very strong indeed.

Thus was born the new kingdom of Edom. Bela the first king occupied the throne as the head of the government, supported by the sheiks, the chiefs or heads of various tribes and territories. This kingdom lay southerly of the Land of Canaan, in an area which we said before was known then as Seir. Esau, the founder of the nation, had recognized Canaan as promised to his brother Jacob (Israel) and to his descendants. This important point would pass into the young nation's traditions. The wording of Genesis 36:6-8 indicates that a brotherly covenant had been arrived at, by which Esau withdrew with his family and all his possessions of flocks and herds from the Land of Canaan, because the land could not bear up to the pasturing of the herds of both of them. By this brotherly covenant each would respect the territory assigned to the other as "homeland," and pass the obligation on the succeeding generations. It is certain that Israel under Moses felt obligated not to violate the territory of Edom (Deut. 2:4-7).

End of Chapter Three

[Sarah]

CHAPTER IV
The Book of Job

"Ye have heard of the patience of Job" James 5:11.

The second king of Edom was Jobab. He was not the son of the first king Bela, but, as mentioned previously, was the son of Zerah, the son of Ruel, a son of Esau. His reign is briefly recorded as follows:

"And Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his stead." Gen. 36: 33.

The city of Bozrah has now been identified as being on the eastern side of Wadi Arabah. The site of Sela is very near to it. (see Nabataea.net site: Sela)

With this identification we can see that the Edomites now controlled country on the east side of the Arabah Valley. Esau, at first, appears to have lived, after leaving Canaan, on the west side of the Arabah Valley. This eastward expansion of the territory of Edom will be referred to again later. We will be noting a very great extension of Edomite dominion eastward from time to time.

The reference to King Jobab is indeed short, yet scanty as is our information, there is enough to open up a very lengthy investigation as to his identity. We cannot cover this in fullest detail here, but will set out a number of points which seem to indicate that this king was none other than the illustrious and patient Job. It seems strange that this apparent identification as not been noted before, so far as we can ascertain. The links between the two, Jobab and Job, are so numerous that the identification is very probable, to say the least, and would indicate that Job, the great example of suffering and patience, was elevated to the kingship at some time after his trying experience.

A careful reading of the Book of Job shows that even before his great testing, (with which alone the book is concerned,) Job was a person of very high rank amongst his contemporaries. The opening chapter tells of his great wealth and piety, and significantly adds:

"This man was the greatest of all the men of the east" (Job.l:1-3.). His high rank, then, cannot be doubted; but this is not all.

Further on in the Book of Job we find that Job occupied and held the leading position in the National Council with the sheiks of his people (Job 29:2, 7-9, 21-24). He sat "chief" and "dwelt as a king in the army" (vs.25). If he laughed at anyone's counsel, showing thereby that he esteemed it poor advice, then others at once rejected it too, and "believed it not" (vs.24). They all recognized that Job's intellectual ability, keen insight, and wide knowledge far exceeded all other members of the council, and they relied heavily upon him.

It is clear, that while Job was not then king, only "as a king," yet he must have been close to the king in honor and rank.

After his distressing trial was over, we are told that Job was greater and more blessed than even before (Job 42:12). That being so, it would be no surprise that upon the death of Bela, the first king of Edom, the National Council, composed of sheiks and other wise men, would elevate Job to the kingship. Indeed, we might well say it was a natural and logical step.

Points Assisting Job's Identity
Here is a brief summary of other-factors pointing to the identity of Job and Jobab.

1. Personal Name. The similarity of names is most obvious. There is only the addition of the syllable "ab" to "Job" to make "Jobab."

2. Same Country. It seems clear they lived in the same country. Job lived in the Land of Uz (Job 1:1). (15) Jobab was King of Edom, living at the City of Bozrah but Edom itself, we read elsewhere in Scripture, dwelt in the land of Uz (Lam.4:21). Evidently "Uz" is the name of a large area; that included within it the Land of Edom. Thus, if Jobab was living in Edom, he must also have lived in Uz; and by this we find both Job and Jobab in the Land of Uz - both lived in the same country.

3. Local Geographical Features. Jobab lived at Bozrah, not so very far south from the Dead Sea, into which the Jordan River empties. The Jordan River was the largest river in that vicinity. Job, too, was definitely acquainted with the Jordan River, and it is referred to as symbolical of a very large flow of water (Job 40:23).

4. Lived About Same Time. Both lived after the time of Ishmael's leaving Abraham, and the establishing of the Ishmaelite tribes in the Northern Arabian Desert. Esau's descendant's, as we know, lived later in time than did Ishmael. Jobab belongs to the fourth generation from Ishmael's age. Job speaks of "the troops of Tema" (Job 6:l9) Assuming that Tema one of the tribes descended from Ishmael (Gen. 25:l5), we would then have positive proof that Job also lived after the time Ishmael. At the same time Job speaks also of "the companies of Sheba" who would be descendants of Sheba, a half-brother to Ishmael (Gen. 25:3). (see Founding of the Nations) The orthodox view has been that the Book of Job belongs to the era before the Exodus. (16) This puts the story of Job right into the same general period of history as the time of the early kings of Edom, when Jobab reigned.

5. Occupation. Jobab belonged to and reigned over a pastoral people, laying much stress upon possessions of flocks and herds. Job, too, was a pastoral person possessing flocks and herds.

6. Contemporary Persons. Granting to Eliphaz, Esau's eldest son, a normal life-span as common in the family and descendants of Abraham, we find that this Eliphaz would be an old man, about 100 years of age or more, before Jobab could begin to reign.

Job's chief friend was a man named, Eliphaz the Temanite. He was evidently an old man, much older than Job's father. Eliphaz speaks of himself and his two companions as "aged men," saying, "With us are both the gray headed and very aged men, much elder than thy father." (Job 15:10).

From this it would seem that Job's father was still living. Also, Elihu, a young man listening to Job and his three comforters, waited until these three were exhausted in their arguments, "because they were elder than he." He then commences his discourse with the words, "I am young, and ye are very old" (Job 32:4, 6)

This aged and very old friend of Job's named Eliphaz, is called "a Temanite." This description of him as a Temanite greatly assists the identifying of Jobab with Job, for Eliphaz, Esau's son, was actually, the progenitor of the Temanites through Teman his son, as we have noted before (Gen. 36: 11, 15). Probably living with the family or tribe of sheik Teman, he would naturally come to be called "a Temanite." As a man of great age, and distantly related to Job, he would be expected to visit Job in his calamity. We consider thee to be one person. And Eliphaz, through his father Esau, and his grandfather Isaac; would possess much knowledge of God, such as is displayed in his discourses with Job.

Again, if the young man Elihu the Buzite of the kindred of Ram in Job 32:2 is to be linked with Abraham's relatives "Buz" and "Aram" in Gen. 22: 21, then the ties linking king Job with Jobab, a descendant from Abraham, are strengthened.

There is, therefore, abundant reason for thinking that Jobab, King of Edom, and Job, the Patient One, may well be one and the same person.

Further Indications of Expansion
Accepting the identification of Jobab with Job, several very important factors to our contention follow there from. The power and influence of the new Kingdom of Edom was still spreading and becoming more firmly established. From the original starting point on the west side of the Arabah, (that deep valley stretching from the Dead Sea southward to the Gulf of Aqaba,) the Edomites had expanded eastward into and across this valley. The city of Bozrah is on the east side of the valley, and was held by them; and they were overrunning and occupying the Arabian Desert to the east of that.

There is evidence that the Arabian Desert used to be better watered and was much more habitable than it is now. With slightly higher moisture content than now it would have been very suitable for grazing sheep. As it is, to this very day Bedouin shepherd take their flocks of sheep deep into the deserts covering all the area from the mountains of Petra to as far as Wadi Sirhan.

Job (or Jobab), during the reign of Bela, his predecessor, was the greatest of the men of the east (Job 1:3, Bene-Kedem). There were clashes with the ancient Chaldeans, who belonged to the region nearer the Euphrates River on the opposite or eastern side of the desert (Job 1:17). Indeed, there is a tradition that Job drank of the waters of "Job's Well" at the Haran Gate of the city of Orfah, situated on the south bank of the Euphrates River. If this be so, Job (or Jobab) in his later days as King, must have made his power felt far to the east. Perhaps he raided and punished the Chaldeans, who had slaughtered his servants and stolen his camels.

There were clashes, too, with the Sabeans who raided the land and stole Job's oxen and donkeys (Job 1:14-15). Now archaeological research has shown that the Sabeans migrated southward through Arabia about 1200 B.C. In Southern Arabia they established a very powerful kingdom centered at Saba. (See Southern Arabia) Prior to this migration the Sabeans (people of Sheba, Gen. 10:28), evidently lived somewhere in Central or Northern Arabia. A moment's reflection will give us reason to suspect that the Kingdom of Saba lay much too far south (over 1,000 miles away), to harmonize readily with raids on cattle and donkey herds near Edom. Thus we have here the strongest type of evidence that the story of Job antedates the Sabean migration southward. It would be perfectly natural, if the Edomites were expanding eastward into Northern Arabia prior to 1200 B.C. to come into conflict with the Sabeans. The story of Job here fits the earlier picture.

(On the other hand, if Saba had already migrated into Southern Arabia, the Edomite kingdom might have been very large indeed. While living in Yemen I had opportunity to visit what is known as Job's grave in Yemen. It is located several miles outside of the city of Sana'a. ed.)

Job's enormous wealth is a factor of evidence not to be overlooked. It indicates an era of prosperity amongst the Edomites. Later, when he became king of Edom, Job would be a very wealthy ruler.

Putting all this information together we begin to catch a glimpse through the haze of the years of a young, flourishing, nomadic kingdom, spreading and pushing outward and extending its sway. By the time of its second king the Edomites already held control over a more or less wide strip of the Arabian Desert easterly from Edom.

From this extensive area could be drawn the swarming manpower for the later Hyksos invasion of Egypt.

As we continue, we shall discover still further evidences of Edomite expansion, and what appears to be the secret of its sudden rise to power.

End of Chapter Four 

[Sarah]

CHAPTER V
The Edomite/Hyksos "Empire"

"He (God) enlargeth the nations" Job l2:23

In Genesis 36:34 the Edomite king-list continues:-

"And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of Temani reigned in his stead."

We are not informed as to who was Husham's father, and, in the absence of contrary information, it seems reasonable to assume that he was the son of the preceding king, that is, of Jobab. We note that Husham was of the Land of Temani, which was the home of Eliphaz the Temanite, Job's chief friend. It would be no surprise for Job's son to make his home in the land of Teman, which was a part of Edom, when Eliphaz the chief friend of the family lived there. The link seems very natural, and serves as one more tie with connecting Job with the Edomites and with Edom's king Jobab.

We are told nothing further about King Husham, nor do we here glean any information concerning expansion of Edom during his reign. King Husham then passes from view.

The Reign of Hadad I
"And Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Avith." Gen. 36: 35

This king, whom we shall style Hadad I, was not the son of the former king, Husham, but was the son Bedad. Thus a new dynasty commences with Hadad I.

As the most significant event and exploit of this king's reign, it is recorded that he defeated Midian, doing so within the borders of Moab. The Midianites lived on the edge of the Arabian Desert on the eastern border of Moab. Quite a few important facts can be gathered from this record of war and victory.

First, it becomes apparent that Moab had, at some time prior to this, conquered and displaced the Emmims the first inhabitants of the land, as recorded in Deut. 2:9-11, 17. It seems all together probable that the three conquests there referred to, the conquest of the Horites by the Edomites, the conquest of the Emmims by the Moabites, and the conquest of the Zamzummims by the Ammonites, all occurred at about the same date; indeed, they could have been closely related events. This was an early Semitic conquest of the fringe lands around Canaan.

Second, we observe an Edomite army occupying and waging a victorious war on Moabite soi1. Since this took place on Moabite soil, either Moab was friendly and cooperative with Edom, or had or been conquered by or was dominated over by Edom. In either case, Edom emerges as the more powerful nation, emphasizing once more that Edom was coming more and more to the front.

Third, we see Midian defeated by Hadad I. Midian is therefore added to the territory controlled by Edom, in addition to the areas mentioned by us before under the previous kings.

Fourth, we get a hint of the northerly limit at that date, at least on the east side of Canaan.

Edom was exercising dominion over Moab and Midian. The ancient north border of Moab (before the rise of Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon,) was the River Jabbok, which empties into the Jordan River. (Num 21:24-26) This wou1d likely be the northern limit of Edom's Kingdom at that time.

If Edom under Hadad I still maintained sway over the Arabian Desert as it apparently did under Jobab, then already a large Arabian Desert Empire was actually in existence. The evidence all support the idea of the Empire as continuing under Hadad I and the succeeding kings, as we shall see later.

The capital city of this king Hadad I was Avith. The site of this city is as yet quite unknown. However, we cannot but wonder if the name Avith is not to be linked with a people known as "Avim" or "Avites" mentioned in Deut. 2:23. These people lived somewhere about the south-west border of Palestine. Their northern limit was at or near Azzah or Gaza. Some of the Avites ( = citizens of Avith?) were still there in Joshua's day (Josh. 13:3). In that very region Sir Flinders Petrie discovered a. number of Hyksos graves. If this suggestion should prove correct, then this king's capital lay outside of Edom proper.

The Reign of Samlah
"And Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his stead." Gen.36:36.

Hadad I was succeeded by Samlah, who was possibly Hadad's son. Aside from this brief reference we know nothing of this king's reign, nor do we know the location of his capital city Masrekah. He was followed by a king named Saul, possibly his son.

The Reign of Saul
"And Samlah died, and Saul of Rehoboth by the river reigned in his stead." Gen. 36:37.

It is startling indeed to read that King Saul's capital city was "Rehoboth by the river." This city is very far from Edom proper. It lay roughly 400 miles north easterly, near the banks of the great River Euphrates and for years as been identified with Rahabah, situated twenty-eight miles below the juncture of the Khabour River River with the Euphrates. The Euphrates is often called in Scripture just "the river" as reference through a concordance will amply prove.

As already said, it is truly startling to learn that a king of Edom should establish his capital 400 miles away from his own country! Clearly the Edomite kingdom had now spread out enormously north- eastwards to the Euphrates River, (perhaps doing so under Samlah's reign, brining Edom close to Assyria. (19) Possibly the business of further conquests in this direction, or beyond the river, made it advisable for King Saul (called Shaul in I. Chronicles 1:48,) to set up the seat of his government so far from Edom proper.

It is important to observe that these kings of Edom did not hesitate to establish their capitals away from their homeland, just as we know the Hyksos kings did when they invaded Egypt, for they established their capital then right in Egypt.

Extent of the Edomite Empire
Review now, for a moment, the widest extent of this Edomite Empire, as hinted at in Scripture and by tradition. The empire takes in a wide sweep of 500 miles across Northern Arabia, from Avim at the south-west corner of Palestine near Egypt to Orfah on the lower Euphrates River, and from Rahabah or Rehboth on the north side, then 600 miles southward to Teyma or Tema (south-east from Edom). (20) (Or perhaps as far south as Sheba in Southern Yemen. In effect, the Edomites may have controlled much of the Arabian Peninsula during this time. ed)

This very extensive area includes all the range of country inhabited by the Ishmaelites or Northern Arabians (Gen 25:18) described as "from Havilah" (Hal'il in Central Arabia) (21) unto "Shur, that is before Egypt" ( = the region of the Isthmus of Suez), "as thou goest toward Assyria" (which would be in the general direction of Rahabah or Rehoboth). From this it can be inferred that the Ishmaelites (North Arabians) were included in this great Edomite Empire, either by conquest or by voluntary co-operation; more likely by co-operation in view of Esau's family ties with Ishmael. It is possible that Hadad's defeat of the Midianites involved the Ishmaelites also, since the Midianites and Ishmalites often worked jointly (Gen 37:25-28, 36; 39:1; Judges 8:21-24)

That an empire of this size should exist upon the very border of Egypt, and the two not come into vital conflict seems impossible, human nature being what it is. Our theory is that the two did clash and that the Edomite semi-nomadic hordes (including Ishmaelites, Hittites, and Hivite bands, with the remnant of the Horites), catching Egypt in an unprepared condition, simply walking through Egypt's light defenses and pouring into Lower Egypt, the Nile Delta, so taking the country without any real battle at all.

Now what would the Egyptians call this mixed horde braking into and sweeping over the Delta Region? Obviously they would refer to them as:

"Arabian" They came from Northern Arabia (Ishmaelites)
"Asiatics" They had Hittite and Hebrew blood in them (Edomites) and quite likely Hittits from Canaan assisted.
"Barbarians" They were semi-nomadic
"Phoenecians" They were of mixed Canaanite and Hebrew stock
"Rulers of Countries" They already ruled over a number of other countries as we have seen. (22)

And that is exactly what the Egyptians called the Hyksos. Compare the above with our list in Chapter One, under No. 2 Race and Language of the Hyksos. What is there to hinder identifying the one with the other?

Identifying Kings by Name
The thought now arises as to the possibility of identifying the names of any Edomite kings with the names of Hyksos kings preserved to us through Egyptian records. This is a matter which linguists and historians may look into at some length, so no positive assertions will be ventured here; only a few tentative suggestions will be given. It could be, of course that the names of Hyksos kings in Egypt belong to a period after the close of the list of Edomite kings in Scripture, so that the two lists would nowhere overlap. However it does seem just feasible that the last three Edomite kings are the same as the first three Hyksos Kings and the parallel is very attractive.

Thus King Shaul of Edom could be Salatis, the first named Hyksos king. Josephus states that Salatis reigned thirteen years. King Saul, after completing his conquests around the Euphrates River, might have turned his attention next to Egypt; and basing his operations from the region of Avim in south-west Palestine pushed into the Delta. The names, Saul and Salatis are similar.

On the border of the Delta nearest this base, Salatis founded his capital city of Avaris (Biblical Tanis or Zoan). Is this name in any way related to the city of Avith, and to the Avim or Avies nearby in south-west Palestine?

The Reign of Baal-hanan
The Bible continues the Edomite record:
"And Saul died, and Baal-hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his stead." Gen.36:38.

The name Baal-hannan could conceivably be shortened to Beon the next Hyksos king. The Semitic name had to be written in Egyptian hieroglyphics and then over a millennium later was transliterated into Greek by an Egyptian Priest Manetho, and in that length of time a name could undergo a shortening process. It seems plausible, anyway, to put forth this suggestion, pending further investigation.

Josephus, quoting from Manetho, gives Beon a reign of 44 years.

The Reign of Hadad II
We come now to the last in the Biblical king-list for early Edom. This is Hadar in Genesis but Hadad in I. Chronicles.l:50.

"And Baal-hanan the son of Achbor died, and-Hadar reigned in his stead: the name of his city was Pau, and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter Mezahab." Gen. 36: 39.

As this king is named Hadad in the Chronicles account, we will style him Hadad II. His city of Pau (or Pai in Chronicles), has been thought to possibly be Phauara in Edom (23) but this is very uncertain. In view of our theory of identity of the Hyksos kings with the Edomites, and they were at this time establishing capitals outside of their homeland, we venture to suggest that this city should be looked for in the Nile Delta region rather than in Edom. For instance, Pau might be Pe, a suburb of Buto in Lower Egypt, a royal residence of early Egyptian kings, or some such place. (24)

The special naming of queen Mehetabel, wife of Hadad II, and the listing of her ancestry, indicate that she was a person of quite; unusual importance. Some have suggested that the names sound Egyptian in origin. However, we appear to have lost the information links which would make such a reference a source of real significance and enlightenment to us. We can but hope that some fortunate discovery will give us the clue some day.

The Importance of the Edomite King-List
It is quite obvious that the writer of the Book of Genesis was listing a line of kings which he considered to be of unusual importance to his readers. So important, indeed, as to draw him aside for a little from his main theme. He was giving his readers references to persons, cities and events which he knew they would readily recognize, understand and appreciate. Today, after three and a half millenniums have passed it is difficult for us to pick up the threads. If Edom was but a tiny, insignificant kinglet, as some scholars seem to want us to think, all this studied, compact listing and reference was both unnecessary and without point. On the other hand, if the writer was recording the origin of the great Hyksos Empire, which ruled over his own people, too, while they resided in Egypt, and on account of which his people were reduced to abject slavery, (as we shall see later on,) then we begin to grasp the vital importance of what this writer was recording, and the parts of the picture fall into place. We realize he was not wasting his own and his readers' time on trivialities to no purpose.

We firmly believe that the more the modern science of archaeology recovers ancient records from Egypt and other places in the Near East, the more we will come to value and appreciate such records as the writer of Genesis took time to condense and preserve for future generations.

The Hyksos King Apachnias
If our suggestion that the Edomite King Saul and Baal-hanan were the Hyksos kings Salatis and Beon, then Hadar or Hadad II should be Apachnias, the Hyksos king who succeeded Beon. Josephus, quoting from Manetho, states Apachnias reigned thirty six years and seven months.

It is difficult to see any similarity between the names Hadar and Apachnias, though it is known that names undergo great alterations with the passage of centuries, and may become so altered and corrupted as to be well nigh unrecognizable. For instance, the great King Ashurbanipal of Assyria, even amongst Semitic tongued people, in a few generations comes to be called "Asnapper" (Ezra 4:10). Fifteen hundred years elapsed from the dates of the Hyksos kings to the time of Manetho who copied the names in Greek, and so great distortion of names could occur.

There is also a possibility of the order of the names of the Hyksos kings having become confused, so that we cannot cling too tenaciously to the sequence of names which has come down to us second, or third hand or possibly much more remotely removed through Manetho and Josephus.

We definitely cannot be certain here, but just offer the suggestion that Apachnias may be the Biblical Hadad II, and leave it to further research.

Other Hyksos Kings
With the death of Kadad II the Scripture list of Edomite kings breaks off. Evidently the author of Genesis felt he had carried the list as far as was necessary. If our theory is correct, he did carry the list just that far, far enough to give the origin of and to connect with, the well known, first few Hyksos kings. The rest of the history of the Hyksos kings would already be sufficiently known to his readers, and was beyond the scope of the writer's subject in the book of Genesis; so he naturally closed his list. We can feel very thankful to Moses (who else was qualified to write Genesis? He was educated in Egypt, lived in Midian, and knew the early Hebrew records and traditions) for carrying the king-list as far as he did, just far enough as we believe to enable us to discover the link with the Hyksos kings.

After Apachnias, Josephus lists three more Hyksos Kings, as follows:

Apophia (I) reigned 61 years
Jonias (John or Khian) reigned 50 years, 1 month.
Aseis reigned 49 years, 2 months. (Josephus "Against Apion" 1:13)

Joniaa or Khian, is the one whose monuments have been found in such widely scattered points, as we mentioned in Chapter I, from Gebelen in Southern Egypt, to Crete, and across to Baghdad. Perhaps in his reign the Hyksos Empire attained its maximum dimensions.

Reviewing our points so far, we feel the evidence for the identity of Edomites and Hyksos kings very strong indeed. The Edomite Empire from Scripture indicates that it was stretching outward over an area which the Hyksos Empire also must have embraced, particularly in reaching Rehoboth (Rahabah) on the Euphrates River. The Hyksos Empire must have taken in Rahabah too, if it extended into Mesopotamia towards Baghdad. And the Biblical account pictures for us a growing kingdom or empire before the invasion of Egypt, a point absolutely essential to linking up with the Hyksos story, since the Egyptian sources and Josephus traditions have always seem to indicate this. Thus all the evidence so far fits together reasonably well.

End of Chapter Five

[Sarah]

CHAPTER VI
The Hyksos Used Horses

"If thou has run with the footmen, and they have wearied the then how canst thou contend with horses?" Jer. 12:5.

It has been suggested by some that one important reason for the astonishing success of the Hyksos invasion of Egypt, was the use of horses in warfare by the invaders. It is also generally conceded that horses were either unknown, or practically unknown in Egypt before that period in which the Hyksos invasion took place. Many believe it was the Hyksos who introduced the horse into Egypt. (

Nevertheless, it is true that the assumption that horses were unknown in Egypt prior to the Hyksos invasion rests upon wholly negative evidence. The evidence is only the entire absence of any reference to horses in the monuments and records of Egypt as we know them, from the times before the Hyksos Dynasties.

While we believe that the foregoing is very close to the truth, yet we are going to suggest that horses were introduced into Egypt a good while before the Hyksos invasion, but that the Egyptians were very conservative and did not take to the use of horses much, until, as they learned the hard way through the Hyksos invasion as to what great military advantages the war-horse gave in battle. For horses give rapid transportation, maneuverability, and elevation above soldiers on foot. (See Appendix 1)

One thing we are very sure of: the Hyksos had horses in abundance, and used them extensively in warfare. Tradition so states. The monuments of Egypt record the use of horses after the Hyksos age. Hyksos graves in Tell el-Dab'a as well as those in south-west Palestine are found to contain the skeletons of horses which were buried with their fond masters. Everything points to the Hyksos as being great horsemen.

No Horses in Edom?
Let us turn now to the Bible again. If the Edomite King-List in Genesis chapter 36 gives us the origin of the Hyksos kings, it will be wholly in order to find some reference to horses, and to their use in warfare. Indeed, it might almost seem to be necessary.

"Aha!" we can hear the critics exclaiming. "Your theory hits a rock there and flounders hopelessly, for the entire chapter gives not even one solitary mention of a horse."

But hold on a minute. We believe we can show just the very evidence that is needed.

In the genealogy of the Horites, who preceded the Edomites and were subdued and absorbed by them, we read of one man named Anah:

"This was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeoh his father." Gen.36:24.

(Note. Some authorities would translate this passage, "that found the warm springs." However Hebrew scholars for generations appear to universally hold to "mules" as the correct meaning. We see no reason to question the historically accepted meaning. "Warm springs" is from a similar word that has been substituted by those who have dificulty accepting the accuracy of the word "mule" as it seems trivial. However, accepting the words "warm springs" would make Anah and Zibeon to be ignorant of the natural, geographical features of their own homeland- certainly not very likely.")

As mules are a cross between ass and horse, our argument for the presence of horses is complete. You cannot have mules without horses being around. Thus a group of stubborn mules blocks entirely the contention of no horses in chapter 36 of Genesis. From this first identification in Scripture of horses in the near east, we may conclude some important points.

First. The Horites of Sier were commonly users of asses or donkeys, as were both the Egyptians and the Babylonians at that early date; for Anah was feeding "the asses of Zibeon his father."

(Note that this Zibeon, a Horite, is not to be confused with Zibeon, a Hivite, mentioned in an earlier chapter.) Second. Horses were evidently running wild in Arabia at this time. These wild horses and evidently mingled with asses, (perhaps wild asses,) and some crosses had occurred, resulting in the mules which Anah discovered. The presence of these mules, strange and utterly new creatures to Anah, astonished him greatly, as well as the others to whom he showed the mules. This was such a unique and exciting event, that thereafter Anah became known as the one who "found the mules." The event was so noteworthy that it was especially referred to in the genealogies.)

Third. We can surmise that horses were relatively new in this part of the world. Probably herds of wild horses were wandering into Northern Arabia from the north and east, and were beginning to become numerous in Arabia. If horses had been known for very long in the territory of these Horites, it seems unlikely that mules would be unknown altogether. Horses the Horites had evidently seen, but not mules: so the advent of horses in that region can be pushed back at least a generation or two before the time of Anah.

It does seem significant, that the very first indication of horses in the Scripture record should be with those people (the Horites) who, amalgamating with the descendants of Esau, became, as we believe, the Hyksos people who loved and used horses so much, and used them in warfare.

The Horse Domesticated
In his book, "Archaeology and the Bible," George A. Barton states, "The Hittites were the first of the peoples of western Asia to use the horse" (IVth Edition, p.79). As the Hittites and the Horites or "Hurri" as we noted before, were related peoples, it helps us in our theory to find the Bible, through this reference to "mules," indicating the presence of horses for the very first time in connection with the Horites, long before other peoples around had domestic horses. The Bible and the clay tablets unite in testifying that the Hittites/Horites were the first, or nearly the first, to domesticate the horse in western Asia.

Again, the clay tablets speak of a people called "Manda" who came from Mitanni-land by the River Euphrates north of Carchemish.(26) Barton tells us the Manda were "horse trainers and dealers." While these tablets come from a period several generations later than Anah, who found the mules, yet this statement helps to confirm the fact that the Hittites, the Horites, the Mitanni and the Manda, all closely related or intermingled peoples, were noted for early use of the horse. Some scholars have gone so far as to suggest that the Hyksos people were the Hittites of Asia Minor, or were led by Hittites, largely on the basis that both had horses.

However, we believe that it was the Horites of Seir who developed the use of the horse along with the Edomites, and that while the Hyksos peoples had many Horites in their composition the Edomites rather than Hittites were the leading faction.

As we pointed out before, the family of Esau was already related to the Hittites even before the move into Seir, and, after the move, intermingled with the Horites. Thus through both the Hittites and the Horites, the Edomites would soon become familiar with horses and horse raising and training. But before going on to study the use of horses by the Edomites, let us look at another reference to horses.

Horses in Egypt
The next reference to horses in the Bible is in Genesis 47:17, where we find Joseph, the ruler of Egypt, accepting horses from certain people in exchange for bread during the great famine. This would be some good while before the Hyksos invasion. The wording of the story seems quite significant.

"Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine" (Gen.47:13).

The people finally ran out of money in both lands with which to purchase bread. Then the peop1e of Egypt, (it does not say of Canaan,) besought Joseph for food (vs.14-15). He was their ru1er, and they sought a solution to their need in the face of lack of funds. Joseph thereupon instituted a different system of exchange to what they had been using.

"And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle if money fail." Gen.47:l6.

Joseph asked the Egyptian people for cattle and so commenced the exchange of livestock for food. Be it noted, that all countries were at this time seeking Egypt for food (Gen.4l:57), and foreigners coming into Egypt in their dire need would take advantage of the new exchange system. Thus we read; "And they brought their cattle unto Joseph." The Egyptians responded with cattle, but the exchanging did not stop with cattle on1y,"and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses, and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year." (vs .17)

Now, if horses were just coming into use amongst the Horites, in the times of Esau, of Jacob and of Joseph, then it would be natural enough for these Horites to bring their horses into Egypt to exchange them for food. This seems to be the very first appearance of horses in Egypt, introduced by trade, ~before the Hyksos invasion. Horses seem to be listed quite high in this reference, too, as if of great value. (See Appendix II)

Horses for Riding and for Chariots
Jacob later mentions the horse used for riding, in the blessing of his sons:

"Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward." Gen.49:17.

After this, we find "horsemen" under Joseph at Jacob's very great funeral procession (Gen.50:9) This reference is in sharpest contrast to the earlier passage, when Joseph so lavishly in tender respect for his aging father from whom he had been cruelly parted for years, sent wagons and many laden asses for bringing his father into Egypt. (Gen.45:9 - 46:6). Horses and horsemen are searched for in vain at this earlier event; indeed, we might say they conspicuous by their complete absence on such an occasion. At the time of Jacob's entry into Egypt, asses and asses only, are referred to as for riding on, and evidently for drawing the wagons too. But when we come down to Jacob's funeral, horses leap to the forefront and the lowly donkey is entirely eclipsed. The very obvious inference is that the horse had been introduced in the interval. Brought in by exchange, Joseph, a man acquainted with nomadic life in the east saw in the horse its tremendous possibilities, and quickly developed corps of horsemen and chariots.

Horses in Warfare
Next, let us look reference immediately rivets our attention with a superb, picturesque, and dramatic description of its use in battle. God speaks to Job saying:

"What time she (the ostrich) lifteth up herself on high, she scorneth the horse and his rider.
"Hast thou given the horse strength? Hast thou clothed his neck with thunder?
"Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? The glory of his nostrils is terrible.
"He paweth in the valley, and rejoiceth in his strength: he goeth on to meet the armed men.
"He mocketh at fear, and is not affrighted; neither turneth he back from the sword.
"The quiver rattleth against him, the glittering spear and the shield.
"He swalloweth the ground with fierceness and' rage: neither believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet.
"He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha; and he smelleth the battle afar off, the thunder of the captains, and the shouting."
Job 39:18-25.

These stirring words vividly describe the horse, evidently but little removed from its fearless wild state, being used by mounted men in fierce and headlong battle. We can sense how the first use of horses in warfare gave the riders great courage and advantage, so that the tide of battle swung in favor of the horsemen and the best horses.

If we are right in identifying Job with Jobab, king of Edom, (and we are quite sure we are,) then the earliest kings of Edom were already making skillful and successful use of horses in warfare.

The horse in war at that time was the equivalent of atomic warfare of today - there was no answer to it! The nation which was first in raising, training, and using war horses extensively, and was the most advanced in this "new power," would be well nigh undefeatable. No wonder "the Edomite/Hyksos Empire grew so greatly!

Egypt's Defeat
We have mentioned how Joseph appears to have introduced the horse into Egypt under his exchange policy, and quickly developed corps of horsemen and chariots. But Egypt was a conservative country; it had never suffered invasion; Joseph was a foreigner who had to eat at a separate table from Egyptians (Gen.43:32) only accepted because of his astute wisdom and favor with the reigning Pharaoh, but looked upon as a foreigner' non-the-less. After Joseph was gone, his policies and his forward-looking and realistic preparation for war with horses would scarcely be carried on by the native Egyptians. The development and training in the horse industry, introduced by a stranger, lagged or was entirely discarded and dropped. Egypt would naturally relapse into her old ways and methods. But meanwhile, not far to the east, by its use of trained and beloved horses, the new Edomite-Hyksos power expanded and grew under Jobab and the kings which followed after him.

Presently, Egypt paid the price for lack of vigilance. Without horses and horsemen she found herself' unable to hold back these mounted Arabian soldiers swarming over her eastern frontier. She yielded to the inevitable, and, as Josephus says, quoting; from Manetho, the strangers overran the country of Lower Egypt without a battle. For the first time in her history, Egypt lay prostrate under a foreign power.

Did the Edomites have horses? Well, after reading that most brilliant description of horses in warfare in the Book of Job, who lived in the land of Uz, where Edom was situated, we can say Yes, undoubted. All this information fits precisely with our point No. 4 The Hyksos had Horses in Chapter One.

End of Chapter Six

[Sarah]

CHAPTER VII
Religion and Date of the Edomite Empire

"Hath a nation changed their gods?" Jer. 2: 11

We come now to the question as to the religious identity of the Edomites and the Hyksos. The Hyksos Kings worshipped Sutekh or Baal. What, then, did the Edomites worship?

Esau himself was a nominal worshipper of Jehovah, the God of his fathers Abraham and Isaac. We have already gone over Esau's relatively light esteem of the demands of the worship of Jehovah (or "Yahweh" as some put it); how he sold his Abrahamic birthright for a mess of pottage, and then completely broke with the sacred traditions of the family by marrying two Canaanite women. Baal worship was dominant in Canaan. Esau sought material advantage and success, and largely gained what he sought. We miss in Esau's life those deep, inward climaxes resulting in conversion of character, redemption of soul, and re-birth of spirit, visible in the life-story of his twin brother Jacob. Nevertheless, the worship of Jehovah was not abandoned by Esau, nor by his earlier descendants.

Esau's eldest son was named Eliphaz, meaning, "God his strength." The name of his second son, Ruel, means, "Friend of God." The third son was Jeush, "To whom God hastens." His fourth son Jaalam, "Whom God hides." An early sheik of Edom is Magdiel, "The praise of God" (Gen. 36:5, 43, etc.)

In the Book of Job we discover that Eliphaz in his old age possessed a most profound knowledge of God and of righteousness. Like his father Esau, Eliphaz gave too great attention to outward, material prosperity; holding such to be the ultimate proof of Divine approval. Thus Job's calamities and material losses were, in his eyes, absolute and unanswerable demonstration of God's anger for some terrible personal sin or sins. Eliphaz had drunk deep of the cup of his father's philosophy. But it is clear that Eliphaz still followed the worship of Jehovah and of Him alone.

Job (or Jobab) also was a worshipper of Jehovah only. But it is to be noted as significant that Job speaks of idolatry as being secretly practiced by some (Job 31:21-28), though in general condemned by the populace of Edom at that time.

The Drift to Baal Worship
Thus up to the reign of Jobab, the second King of Edom, the worship of Jehovah was continued in general amongst the Edomites, either truly and sincerely or just nominally by the individuals. But by the time we reach the seventh king, Baal seems to step to the front. That king's name was Baal-hanan, meaning, "To whom Baal is merciful," or, "Whom Baal loves." The name "Jehovah" compounded into personal names appears less and less; "Baal" appears instead. This name "Baal-hanan" if compounded with "Jehovah" instead of "Baal" would mean, "Whom Jehovah loves." We know it as Johanan or John. One of the Hyksos kings actually bore this name. He is Jonias, otherwise known as "John" or "Khian." This shows that the name of God had not been forgotten, even so late as that, but with him the last vestige of Jehovah honoring seems to have disappeared. With King John the zenith of the Hyksos power passes also. Baal (Sutekh or Seth) became their god. Finally, we learn from Egyptian records that, "King Apophis made Sutekh (Seth) his Lord, serving no other god, who was in the whole land, save Sutekh." (27)

From all we know of the later Edomites it seems that Baal, in one form or another, was their principal god.

The whole picture seems to indicate a slow change over from the worship of Jehovah, derived originally from Abraham and Isaac; through a declining interest in Jehovah exhibited in Esau and Eliphaz; to an exaltation of Baal exhibited in the name of Baal-hanan; and the final exclusion of all other gods under King Apophis. Just the same drift would have taken place in Israel more than once except for the strenuous opposition of the prophets. The prophets brought about revivals in which the people returned to the worship of Jehovah. We know of no such revivals in the history of Edom.

Unger's Bible Dictionary, under "Hyksos," states: "The Hyksos erected large earthen enclosures for their horses. This type of construction can be seen at Jericho, Shechem, Lachish, and Tell el-Ajjul. They also erected many temples to Baal. There are also evidenced of worship of the mother . mmon in Hyksos levels are cultic objects such as **** figurines, serpents, and doves, showing their complete devotion to this type of degrading worship. Hyksos burial customs are distinctive as is their chariotry."

When we consider the high and noble origins of the Edomite/Hyksos peoples, the same origin which Israel had, our hearts are saddened to behold the depths to which they sank. Yet we thank God that He, through the prophets whom He raised up, preserved Israel for so many centuries before they too, in the days of Jeremiah, declined to the point that God ,had to remove them by captivity. He said to the "weeping prophet"

"Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape; and though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them For according to the number of thy cities were thy gods, O Judah, (local Baals); and according to the number of the streets of Jerusalem have ye set up altars to that shameful thing, even altars to burn incense unto Baal.... Therefore pray not thou for this people..." Jeremiah 11:11, 13, 14.

To sum up this interesting point, in spite of the paucity of specific detail, in the matter of religion there is no difficulty in linking the Edomites to the Hyksos. What we know of each seems to neatly dovetail into one picture, which should be the case if we are really dealing with one people.

The Comparison of Dates
Let us now take up the most difficult yet most important parallel, the question of the dates of the respective Edomite and Hyksos Empires. If we find both existed, as near as we can tell, at the same time, then the identity of the two could hardly be questioned. Two separate and unrelated empires cannot be occupying the same spheres and areas at one and the same time.

May we say immediately, that merely attaching a certain date BC to the one and the other from some popular (or other) chronological systems will in no way assist us in this important phase of our investigation? One man's set of dates for Biblical history may put the Edomite kings as about 1400 BC or later, another set may put them as 2200 BC or earlier. One Egyptologist will date the Hyksos kings as about 1800 B.C., and another at an altogether different date. To use a popular expression, "that gets us nowhere fast!" That will not help us, nor prove similarity of time.

What we need to do is so relate the time of the Edomite kings recorded in Scripture to some Biblical event which ties in to Egyptian history, that computing from that event; we discover the times of the Edomite kings and of the Hyksos Kings will link together. For instance, if we knew with absolute certainty which Pharaoh was reigning at the time of Joseph, the computation would be simple; but unfortunately we do not know that Pharaoh in spite of guesses and surmises we may say by the dozen! The next nearest event linking Egyptian and Biblical history is the Exodus of Israel from Egypt and Joshua's Conquest of Canaan.

The date of the Exodus is itself a very vexed question. But it seems to be now generally agreed that the Exodus was either during the XVIIIth Dynasty or the XIXth Dynasty. We strongly favor the time of the XVIIIth Dynasty, feeling that the date of the XIXth Dynasty does not tally with the chronological note given in I Kings 6:1, placing the Exodus nearly 500 years before Solomon's reign, nor with the lengthy period for the Judges in Israel as mentioned by Jephthah (Judg.ll:28). We will therefore consider the earlier dating, that is, that the Exodus was during the XVIIIth Dynasty.

The Fall of Jericho
The Bible record gives the destruction of Jericho under Joshua as being very soon after the death of Moses, at the end of the forty years of wandering in the wilderness. Prof. J. Garstang's excavations at Jericho not only demonstrated that the city's walls fell as with an earthquake shock, but make it fairly certain by the presence of Egyptian scarabs, etc., that Jericho was destroyed during the reign of the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep III, dated by Breasted as 1411 - 1375 BC.

Using this as a link between Egyptian and Biblical histories, let us proceed to compare for confirmations of the link, and then compute back to the times of the Edomite kings and of the Hyksos Kings.

The Amara letters
A number of years ago a remarkable discovery was made at Tell el Amarna in Egypt of inscribed tablets giving official correspondence between government officials in Palestine and the reigning Pharaoh in Egypt. These tablets are a very valuable source of information, and are known as, "The Amarna, Letters."

Some of these letters tell of a people called "Khabirit" (that is, "Hebrews") who were invading Canaan from the east during the reign of Amenhotep III just as did the Israelites under Joshua in the Biblical record. (28)

This invasion continued on into the reign of the next Pharaoh, Akhenaton, or Amenhotep IV. If these Khabiri are the Children of Israel (Hebrews), under Joshua, and we believe they are, then the Amarna Letters confirm the archaeological data as to the fall of Jericho being during the reign of Amenhotep III. Thus we have two very good archaeological evidences linking Biblical and Egyptian histories at this point.

(Note. The excavations at Hazor in Northern Palestine are said to strongly favor the later date for the Hebrew invasion of Canaan, more in line with Merneptah as the Pharaoh of the ;Exodus. However, Razor does not seem to have been wiped out by Joshua as was Jericho, for early in the Book' of Judges Hazor is again the capital city of Jabin (II), king of the Canaanites (Judg.4:2). When Joshua burnt the city (Josh. 11:10-l3), and destroyed the people found in it, the damage must have been repaired, and either later or at the time re-occupied by Canaanites. For all we know, there may have been a greater destruction of Hazor after Deborah and Barak than under Joshua, the record does not say, and that later destruction would certainly fall in the time of the XIX Dynasty by our chronology. Further search at other points occupied by Israel at the Invasion is needed. The reference to a Canaanite Nazor in Judges 4:2 makes it impossible to say that the final destruction of Canaanite Hazor was carried out by Joshua. Joshua must belong to an earlier period, therefore, which would place him in the Amarna period.)

The Oppression and Exodus of Israel
Forty years before the death of Moses and the fall of Jericho, the Bible places the Exodus of Israel from Egypt. On the other hand, forty years before the invasion of Canaan by the Khabiri (Hebrews) and before the fall of Jericho from the archaeological evidence, brings us approximately to the time 'of the death of Amenhotep II, 1420 BC by Breasted's chronology. We therefore propose that this Pharaoh Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. We will use this as our working hypothesis.

At the Exodus, the Bible says, Moses was 80 years old and his brother Aaron 83 years (Exod.7:7). Using Breasted's Egyptian chronology, 80 years before the death of Amenhotep II would be 1500 BC for the birth of Moses, and 83 years before would be 1503 BC for the birth of Aaron. Now that date for the birth of Moses would be the second year of Thutmosis III, whom some have suggested as possibly the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and by the same reckoning the birth of Aaron comes two years before this Pharaoh began to reign. (His reign by Breasted's chronology began in 1501 B.C.) This arrangement of dates fits the Biblical account astonishingly well.

We know that the severe stage of oppression was on right at the time when Moses was born. The Pharaoh had just commanded that the Hebrew boy infants be thrown into the Nile, but Moses was hidden. On the other hand, there is no hint of any need for hiding Aaron who was born only thee years before Moses. Evidently, the cruel command to destroy the Hebrew baby boys was not yet made at the date of Aaron's birth (Exod.l:22) but it certainly was in effect at the date of Moses' birth. Clearly then, the command was issued in the interval. We suggest, therefore, that this new command came from the new Pharaoh, Thutmos1s III, shortly after he ascended to the throne, approximately two years after Aaron was born, and about one year before Moses' birth. The persecution was then at its maximum.

Nevertheless the Biblical account indicates it was a considerable time before the birth of Moses that persecution of the birth of Moses that persecution of the Hebrews and the enslavement of the nation first began. It began when the reigning Pharaoh feared lest these Hebrews ally themselves with Egypt's foes (Exod.l:8-l1). We are not told how long a time elapsed from the beginning of this enslavement to the more severe stage when the boy infants were to be destroyed, but the inference is that quite a few years passed by during which the Hebrews built store-cities for the king. The persecution of the Hebrews was evidently intensified from time to time, finally culminating in the new command to kill the baby boys, which as we have said, we think was issued by Thutmosis III shortly after he came to the throne. It takes not many years, only 79, to carry us back from the accession of Thutmosis III (1501 B.C.) to the founding of the XVIIth Dynasty under Ahmose I who is coupled directly with the expulsion of the Hyksos kings from Egypt (1580 BC). The founding of this Dynasty fits well with the wording of Exodus 1:8 "Now there arose up a new king over Egypt (29) Ahmose I was definitely a "new king" and the circumstances of that king's reign might well lead to the enslavement of the Israelites as we shall see in a moment.

From the foregoing study we give an accompanying Table of the Bible record and Egyptian History (the latter based upon Breasted's arrangement), in parallel columns. This parallel seems to be particularly happy at all points of contact throughout.

(Click here to view this table)

The Edom-Israel Quarrel
If the Hyksos people really the Edomites and associated nations or tribes as we have proposed, then Ahmose I, who expelled the Hyksos, would truly fear that the Hebrew chi1dren of Israel would join with the Hyksos, since the Edomites and Israelites were brother-nations. They were probably pledged to respect one another's territories. Such friendly peop1es would be expected to assist one another. So, whi1e Ahmose I warred with the Hyksos Kings (30) chasing them out of Egypt toward Southern Palestine, and was in the process of building his army and organizing Egypt into a military state, he apparently took counselw1th his advisers to subject Israel to slavery to nip in the bud any possible cooperation if Israel with Hyksos/Edom. It cannot be denied that the Pharaoh was expecting Israel to side with Egypt's enemies.

How would the Hyksos/Edom Kings view the situation? The Egyptians were revolting from under their rule. Israel was as "much foreign to Egypt" as were the Hyksos themselves; and Israel was their brother.

Hyksos/Edom was in terrific struggle, going down in defeat and humiliation. Did the Hyksos/Edomites feel that their brethren, the Israel-Hebrews, failed them in their hour of need? Did they perhaps appeal to Israel in their desperate situation? Would they not blame Israel for not rising up en masse against Ahmose I to contend on their behalf? We sense the reasonableness of all this from the view-point of Hyksos/Edom. This view would explain why Edom later so bluntly refused Israel passage through his land, why he so promptly came out against his brother with a sword (Num 20:14-21), and why so bitter an unending, age-long quarrel arose between Edom and Israel.

The Amalekites, too, an independent tribe which branched off from Edom (Gen. 36:l2,16}, probably branching off when the Hyksos/Edomite Empire collapsed, also exhibited a very bitter spite Israel, surprising them in the wilderness by a sneak-attack. This was followed by a perpetual quarrel for all time (Exod.11:8-l6).

Date of Hyksos Kings and Edomite Kings
Prof. Breasted believed that 100 years would be ample to cover the length of time the Hyksos ruled in Egypt, and it may have been less. (31) Now, our Parallel Table gives the expulsion of the Hyksos as 160 years before the Exodus, and 100 years more would place the Hyksos invasion of Egypt as 260 years before the Exodus.

The Children of Israel were in Egypt 430 years, from the day Jacob entered Egypt to the Exodus (Ex. l2:40-4l). On the basis of this data, the Hyksos invasion of Egypt would be about 170 years after Jacob and his family moved from Canaan into Egypt.

As we said before, it appears that Bela, Edom's first king may well have started his reign not very long after Jacob entered Egypt. This 170 years would therefore cover the formation of Edom into a kingdom, and also the reigns of the first five kings, Bela, Jobab, Husham, Hadad I, and Samlah. The average reign for these five would accordingly be approximately 30 years each. This seems reasonable enough, and seems to indicate we are on the right track.

Clearly, from the view-point of time or chronology, we find that the Edomite and Hyksos Empires coalesce into one full picture. The Biblical history and the Egyptian history supplement each the other. This brings our study of the time-element to a happy conclusion.

The parallels have much in agreement. That is what we set out to discover in this chapter, and the agreement of dates is not only encouraging to our theory, but makes it a well-nigh inescapable conclusion; because if there was an Edomite Empire as we have drawn from the Scripture references, then a separate Hyksos Empire could not exist at the same time in the same general area. Do empires overlap like this? No; and we therefore conclude that they are one and the same. Point No. 6 of Chapter I is thus found to be settled in our favor, we feel, conclusively.

End of Chapter Seven

[Sarah]

CHAPTER VIII.
Where Did They Go

"I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it." Jer.18:7

We have seen from the beginning the startling suddenness with which the Hyksos people burst in upon Egyptian history, coming from the east, out of that general area which embraces the northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula and the south fringe of Palestine, where lay the Land of Edom. Outside of the various theories put forth, and what we have proposed in the preceding chapters, we know absolutely nothing of whence these people came. It has been a baffling problem to scholars for a long time.

It is, however, quite reasonable to suppose that when the Hyksos kings were finally forced to retreat from Egypt they would fall back toward the land from whence they came. Let us consider, then, the path of their retreat.

As we would expect, the Hyksos Kings, after a siege in Avaris, first went from the Delta Region across the Isthmus of Suez. They were going back the way they had come. Ahmose I, the Egyptian king credited with expelling these foreigners, then pursued them eastward into southern Palestine. There the Hyksos power held out against the Egyptian forces for three years at the siege of Sharuhen, a very long siege indeed. (32) Finally Sharuhen fell, and with that event the Hyksos power was not only broken, but vanishes completely from history.

Sharuhen is therefore of key importance in tracing the Hyksos retreat. As mysteriously and as suddenly they come into history, so the Hyksos kings and armies disappear again.

The location of this city, the last known stronghold of the Hyksos kings is believed to be Tell el-Far'ah (33)

It lies well to the southwest in the Land of Canaan, in the territory later assigned to the tribe of Simeon. In the Bible it .is referred to under the following names:

Shilhim (or "armed men") Joshua 15:32.
Sharuhen (or "Pleasant Dwelling"), Joshua 19:6
Shaaraim (or "The Gates") I. Chron. 4:31

As we said before after their defeat at Sharuhen, the Hyksos Kings and armies vanish from sight, the trail is lost. Historians and scholars think they then retreated to their own country - wherever that was! And the scholars have looked northward and have searched and searched in that direction for such a place, but have not found it.

Which Way from Sharuhem?
Obviously, further retreat from Sharuhen could only be either northward, eastward or southward.

Directly eastward may be discounted as it leads towards the wastes of the southern end of the Dead Sea.

If the Hyksos King's retreated northward through Palestine, the inference would be that their homeland lay northward of Palestine. Thus we have had proposals offered us that the Hyksos were Hittites from Asia Minor under another name, or came from some part of Syria. All very vague and unsatisfactory suggestions, but granting that it was so, it then follows that there must have been a southward conquering sweep through Palestine before the Hyksos first reached Egypt. But where has any evidence of such a southward march been found? The Hyksos graves found in 1931 at Old Gaza (Tell el Ajjul) are no indication of a southward conquest thought Canaan; rather they appear as a northerly limit of Hyksos occupation. Our suggestion is that the Hyksos influence spread from south to north. Turn O scholar, standing puzzled and frustrated at Sharuhen because of this dead-end trail. Turn and cast your eyes southward and southeastward, where lies the Land of Seir and the regions of the ancient Kingdom of Edom. The home of the Hyksos Kings we suggest to you, was not northward from Old Gaza or from Sharuhen, but is to be found south easterly in a land where the use of the Arabian horse in warfare was likely first developed.

Why the Edomite Kings avoided overrunning Canaan
You may ask then, if the horse gave the Hyksos/Edom desert kingdom its battle advantage, so that they could take Egypt under control, why did the Edomite Kings to push northward into the rich land of Canaan before conquering Egypt, for the horse would give a much advantage in Canaan as in Egypt?

In reply we suggest two factors which would operate to move Hyksos/Edom to avoid Canaan and leave it relatively untouched at first.

1. If the Edomites were the head of the associated peoples comprising the Hyksos, they would posses the tradition handed down from Esau that the Land of Canaan was Jacob's (Israel's) and was not to be touched by them. The inclusion of Ishmaelites in the Hyksos conglomeration would do nothing to weaken this tradition. Tradition is a powerful force in any peoples, and especially so in the Near East.

So Hyksos/Edom spread its empire northward, not through Canaan but up through the Arabian Desert east from Palestine. Canaan would be to early Edom, taboo, sacredly set apart for a brother-nation, inviolate by a solemn pact between two brothers.

2. Another reason why a Hyksos/Edom power would refrain from pressing into Canaan is that Esau had married Canaanites wives from southern Palestine, and the Canaanites in that region would be in affinity with Edom and on friendly terms. Indeed, it is quite possible that Hittites and Hivites from Canaan would be assisting Edomite Allies.

Breakup of the Empire
When Ahmose I defeated the Hyksos at Sharuhen, he had a wedge deep between the Canaanite allies on the north and the Hyksos/Edomite home-desert on the south. Indeed, his soldiers probably overran the Sinai Peninsula as Ahmose I would not wish to leave his right flank wide open, nor run the risk of having his retreat cut off should he not succeed in defeating the Hyksos at Sharuhen; and indeed in later history we find Edom holding but little territory west of the Arabah Valley. Edom thereafter seems to center on the east side of the valley. In conquering the south fringe of Canaan and the North Sinai Desert, Ahmose I was actually subduing the original home of Edom as that home is depicted in the Bible, and so, according to our theory, crushing the Hyksos in their own, home land. There, in that very area, he brought the foe into final, vital combat; hunted him out, overthrew him, and broke forever the Hyksos Empire. No wonder the Hyksos hung on so long at the siege of Sharuhen; fighting for three desperate years. It was their "last ditch" stand. They either had to defeat Ahmose I right there or go down to extinction. Oh, yes; the Hyksos had some Canaanite allies on the north in the Hittites and the Hivites, but as we said before, Canaan itself does not appear to have been a conquered part of the Hyksos/Edomite Empire, only a friendly ally; otherwise the Hyksos might have retired northward from Sharuhen to one fortified city after another throughout Palestine and worn out Ahmose I and his army. But, no, Sharuhen was final: The Hyksos conglomeration did not win, and so it was extinction: The candle had burned out: Thus we see why the Egyptian had no more wars with the Hyksos thereafter; why the story ends at Sharuhen. It was the end: Hyksos/Edom collapsed.

With this collapse and defeat of the Edomite faction, the very leaders of this Hyksos conglomeration, the whole empire would naturally go to pieces. Using our imagination a little we may infer as follows.

We may suppose that any Hittite and Hivite elements assisting Hyksos/Edom would revert to their Canaanite cities to the north. The Hittite soldiers would go back to Hebron (where the Bible places Hittites, Gen. 49: 29-32) or some such Hittite settlement; the Hivites to a Hivite home such as Gibeon (Josh.9:3-7; 11:19); or they may have fled even further than that with Ahmose's soldiers so close at their heels, to return later when things settled down. With Sharuhen fallen, Canaan seems to have offered little resistance to Ahmose I.

Amalek, originally an Edomite tribe, seems to now break away to become an independent nation. The Amalekites may have been forced away from the rest of Edom by being held under Egyptian rule during the rest of the reign of Ahmose I. and his successors. Anyway, not very long after, at the time of the Exodus, we find the Amalekites to be an independent people. They attacked the Israelites in the wilderness even before the latter reached Mount Sinai (Exod.17:8-l6). Amalek was the first of the nations to wage war with Israel thereby falling under God's order for extermination (Num.24:20).

Moab, which likely collaborated with Edom, appears to be free of Edomite control when next we meet this nation in history, toward the close of the forty years of wandering.

The Midianites, close by the eastern border of Moab, who had been defeated by Hadad I King of Edom and probably remained subservient to Edom from then until the collapse at Sharuhen, probably regained complete independence, only to succumb later to the Amorite King Sihon, for in the latter days of Moses the chiefs of Midian are sheiks of Sihon king of Heshbon (Josh.l3:21). However, upon Sihon the Amorite being destroyed by Moses and the children of Israel, the five Midianite sheiks of Sihon immediately became independent, collaborated with Balak, King of Moab in hiring the Prophet Balaam (Num. 22:4,7), and very soon after, when Moses sent an expedition against them, these same five chiefs have assumed the title of "kings" (Num.31:. But in all this, after the siege of Sharuhen, the Midianites appear to be no longer under Edom's thumb.

The Ishmaelite segment in the Hyksos/Edom composition, upon the fall of Sharuhen would flee towards their own country, the North Arabian Desert. Most likely this group would fly northward from Sharuhen to escape pursuing Egyptian troops, and would cross the Jordan River and Gilead to reach Arabia.

The knowledge we possess of the siege of Sharuhen is given us in the record of an Egyptian army officer who served in the Hyksos wars. His account indicates there was a chasing of Hyksos remnants up into Canaan and parts of Coelesyria. But there is no account of any further sieges of cities held by Hyksos Kings: that ended at Sharuhen.

In later history the Ishmaelites appear as being free of any Edomite control or leadership (Judg.8:24). The Hyksos/Edomite King, if he survived the siege and any Edomite and Horite soldiers who happened to escape, would turn southward toward the Land of Seir. We may surmise they would cross the Arabah Valley to the east side to get away from the Egyptian armies overrunning Sinai and southern Canaan.

It is thus, we suggest, that the whole Hyksos/Edomite Empire fell to pieces, never to rise again. After the fall of Sharuhen the Hyksos/Edomite Kings had no more strongly fortified cities into which retreat could be made, for such were lacking in the Land of Edom, at that time. Hyksos/Edom having destroyed the Horites had not built large, fortified cities in Edom, being nomads. Archeology has confirmed this nomadic period stretching from about 1700 BC to 1300 BC. So the Hyksos lacked fortified home cities into which to retreat.

Our Theory is further Supported
The scattering of the Hyksos forces from Sharuhen as above depicted, is, we know speculation and surmise. Yet, the picture is not entirely without some justification for we do know that the fall of Sharuhen marked the disappearance of the last organized resistance of the Hyksos that we can find in history. The last vestiges of the Hyksos armies must have been scattered from there somewhat as we have pictured.

The very fact that the Egyptian records follow up the Hyksos Kings only as far as Sharuhen, and at that point the whole Hyksos Empire suddenly fades forever, is very strong evidence the Hyksos far homeland was not far away in some such place as Syria or Asia Minor where the empire could still have carried on in strength for years outside of Egypt. No, that homeland must have been either at Sharuhen or at some very near by place, so that the fall of Sharuhen wrecked their entire empire forever. Thus our argument receives strong support by the sudden disappearance of the Hyksos Kings at Sharuhen. The close by place we suggest was Edom.

We submit that in taking the North Sinai Desert, reaching Sharuhen, and levying tribute upon the Canaanite cites to the north, Ahmose I had done all that was necessary to break up the Hyksos confederation or conglomeration, whichever it was. Thereby he had driven the Hyksos Kings right back into their own homeland, had subdued parts thereof, had left them no fortified cities, and had been able to levy tribute on the Canaanite allies. His objective fully accomplished, he desisted from further effort in that direction, and returned home in triumph there to bring Nubia into his kingdom and to consolidate his position at home.

Some Important Considerations
Although the Hyksos Kings vanished from sight, they have left us an important legacy. Their rule was not in vain.

They introduced the use of horses for war, both cavalry and for chariots. Chariotry afterwards made Egypt the mightiest nation on earth. The Hyksos also introduced the composite bow. One wonders if the Ishmaelite allies of Hyksos/Edom had a hand in that, for their progenitor Ishmael, according to the Scriptures, was noted as being "an archer" (Gen. 21:20). This notation in Scripture indicates that archery was an outstanding ability with him. He or his children may possibly have originated the composite bow, or have taken it up from some earlier people and introduced it into Egypt. But it is likely that the Hyksos have made one still greater contribution to world progress, before which war horses and composite bows seem relatively unimportant. This is the alphabet.

The founder of the Horite colony which occupied part of the Sinai Peninsula, the Arabah and neighboring regions, was "Seir the Horite" (Gen. 36:20). From him the area received the name of "the land of Seir," and this branch of the Hurrians are correctly called, "Seirites." The term "Seirites" is in later history used of the Edomites who had inter-mingled with and intermarried with these Horites, and finally supplanted them.

Now the Egyptians had valuable turquoise mines at Serabit in the Sinai Peninsula. The people round about, evidently the Horites or Seirites, labored in these mines for the Egyptians. The Egyptians had long had their hieroglyphic writing where each sign or picture, as a rule, stood for a whole Egyptian word. This was not suitable for the language of the Seirite workmen and their overseers. Evidently someone hit upon the idea of using some of the Egyptian signs to represent sounds in the Seirite language, and, lo, the first alphabet was born!

In 1906 the great archaeologist Sir Flinders Petrie found alphabetic inscriptions at these mines which must have been written at least as early as 1500 B.C., and the study of these inscriptions has given rise to the belief the alphabet arose as described above. "Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia," 1958 ed., Vol. I, page 186; (published by F. E. Compton & Co., Chicago,) summarizes the story thus: "Origin of our alphabet. Just how this invention was made, we do not know in detail. Some scholars believe it came when a Semitic people called the Seirites were working in some turquoise mines in the Sinai Peninsula, and the Egyptian masters of the mines taught them how to write. The Egyptians did not teach their full, elaborate method of writing with pictures, they taught a simpler method which they used for writing names. In this method, each picture stood for the first sound in the name of the object shown in the picture."

The Seirites, using this method could put signs together to spell out the sequence of sounds in any word in their own language.

This would soon be found to be a simple and easy method of writing. The new method of using a sign for a sound instead of a sign for a word would be in use for some considerable time, we surmise, before it would begin to spread into more general use amongst the upper, learned classes. Thus the origin of the idea must go back a long time before the writing of the Serabit inscriptions of 1500 B.C. The invention thus seems to belong to the Horite period.

Later, the Edomites, mingling with these Seirites (Horites) around 1800 BC, would learn these alphabetical signs. Under the Hyksos/Edomite Empire the new idea would naturally pass on to their Canaanite allies. The Canaanites may have improved the alphabet. Then the Canaanites of Tyre and Sidon (the Phoenicians), sailing over the Mediterranean Sea spread the alphabet far and wide. Through the Greeks and the Romans it has passed down to us.

Thus the Horites and the Edomites (the Hyksos), may have helped tremendously in giving us the alphabet. Without it, that Divine Revelation, the Bible, could scarcely have come to us; certainly the general public would never have been readers. Thanks to those Sinai mine workers, I, today can type these words from which your eye so quickly and easily gathers up my message. Did the Spirit of God move upon Moses to include in his writings these references to the Horites because of the important role they played in making Holy Writ possible?

End of Chapter Eight

[Sarah]

CHAPTER IX.
Further Considerations

"He (God) enlargeth the nations, and straiteneth them again." Job 12:23.

Having now surveyed an array of evidences for the identification of the Hyksos Kings with the Biblical Edomites, it is hoped we may confidently speak of them as one people, the Hyksos/Edomites. At every point the references to each so coincide and tally that we feel justified in so doing.

"But, someone may object, "Not one of the points cited in the foregoing chapters in itself constitutes absolute proof."

That may be true, friend, we reply, but we do feel that it is the large accumulation of very striking similarities which is so greatly impressive.

Still, without giving absolute proof, some may yet insist; so that the argument for the theory in unconvincing. We believe that this may be very difficult. Nomadic people leave little behind them in the way of buildings, monuments, and written records. If the entire Edomite Kingdom was based on nomadic tribes raiding the Arabian Peninsula, then there may be little physical evidence of their existence.

However there are some interesting comments made by the Israelites of the time. Consider the words of Moses' triumphant song when Israel came through the Red Sea, and the Egyptians were drowned.

The people shall hear, and be afraid;
Sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina.
Then the sheiks of Edom shall be amazed;
The mighty men of Moab, trembling shall take hold upon them
All the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away. (34)
Exodus 15: 14-15.

If one remembers that not too long before the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, the sheiks of Edom were chased out of Egypt by Ahmose I, one can see why they would be simply amazed beyond measure to learn that the slave nation Israel had actually been able to march out of Egypt as victors. The sheiks, comparing the report with their own humbling expulsion from Egypt, would be filled with wonder and astonishment.

They, rulers of Countries, dominating Egypt and reigning as Pharaohs in it, were expelled: Israel, crushed into helpless slavery makes a triumphant Exodus. What a contrast! The sheiks of Edom were amazed.

"The horse and his rider hath He thrown into the sea" The very thing which once had given the Hyksos/Edomites such advantage in battle, and which the Egyptians had now taken up and copied, assisting in building up the great Eighteenth Dynasty Empire, was utterly defeated. Yes, those sheiks of Edom had cause for amazement indeed!

Now we can see the true, deeper meaning in the words of Moses' song. The words take on real life. How exactly appropriate they were. Thus the identification of Hyksos/Edom assists the student of Scripture to better understand what he reads, and gives reality to the passage.

Did They Reign in Egypt?
Another point of deep interest, which seems to have received very scant attention, is, "Why did the Hyksos Kings, after conquering Egypt, move their capital into Egypt?" The Assyrians later also conquered Egypt, but the Assyrian capital remained at Nineveh. Is it not quite unusual for conquerors, having already a settled home-capital, to move their seat of government into a subjugated country? If the Hyksos kings came from Syria or Asia Minor or Canaan, then why did their capital not remain in be Syria or Asia Minor or Canaan, as the case might be? There must some good reason behind the move.

If our theory is right, one needs but to compare Edom and Egypt to see one very good reason. (35) Egypt was so much more attractive to live in than the deserts of Edom, that such a move is seen to be the obvious, most natural and logical thing to do (Gen.l3:l0).

We have already noted from the Biblical record that King Saul of Edom did not hesitate to set up his first capital at Rehoboth by the Euphrates, a long, long way off from Edom itself. This trait gives away the similarity if not the identity of Edomite and Hyksos.

The only reason we can suggest for making this move, is having a place where he could graze the thousands of horses and camels that he must have had at his disposal. If the horse had given the Edomites the edge in battle, then the various sub-tribes and surround tribes of Edom must have joined in on the raids. Thus it became physically impossible for these raiders to camp in any large numbers except in well watered plains where there was plenty of forage for their horses.

This argument would also apply equally as well to the Hyksos/Edomites setting up their capital at Tell el-Dab'a in the heart of the Nile delta.

What the Hyksos Kings Took with Them
When the Hyksos kings were expelled from Egypt, they could not but take with them the memory of life in Egypt. That memory would bear some fruit in later life. These Hyksos kings had appreciated Egyptian art in stone, the magnificent temples, and palaces in which they had worshipped and lived. They, too, had built beautiful temples in Egypt. The Horite element in the Hyksos/Edomite make up, if there is any truth at all in the thought that they used caves in Seir, must have worked formerly in stone, and would admire Egyptian stone-art. In any case, the Hyksos/Edomites must have learned vastly from the Egyptians. When they retreated into the Arabian Desert whence they came, they took with them a greatly enhanced knowledge in stone art with an enlarged appreciation of what could be done. Here was a situation in which originality could fructify.

As we said before, the Edomites in their retreat seem to have fallen back right to the east side of the Arabah Valley. All the extensions of the empire fell away, only the Edomite core was left. This would bring the Hyksos/Edomite leaders remaining, right to Bozrah which had been the capital under King Jobab. Yet it is unlikely that Bozrah was fortified at this time. The Edomites had originally occupied thee country as nomads, and, as M. E. Kirk puts it, the majority seem simply to have pitched their amid the ruins of the conquered cities. ("Outline of Ancient Cultural History of Trnsjordan" Palestine Exploration Quarterly, July-October 1944, p 180)

The Israelites later did the same when they overran Canaan. It was not until well over three hundred years had passed that the Israelites began to really build cities. (Those who argue for a late invasion of Canaan by Israel, around 1200 B.C., have perhaps overlooked the fact that too little time is left for nomadic Israel, fresh out of the wilderness wanderings to switch over to a city-dwelling state.)

City dwelling seems to have begun even before the time of Samuel. The Hyksos/Edomites had occupied cities outside of their home-land, but appear to have utterly neglected the building cities in Edom. At least, archeologists have not yet found trace of any in Edom at this period. Thus, thrown back to the region of Bozrah, the Hyksos/Edomites would have little or no defense against Egyptian pursuit.

The City Petra and Beidha
Not very far south from Bozrah is Petra and el-Beidha "Little Petra." Both of these centers are located in a quite inaccessible valley in the heart of very rugged the country. Such locations would have offered the defeated Hyksos/Edom a natural defense and a safe retreat. Even if this site had been occupied in a small way previously, it still could at this time have offered a haven for the crushed Hyksos/Edomite remnant, a place where to lick the wounds while recovering from the terrific shock of defeat.

Tossed back out of Egypt into nomadism, perhaps the Hyksos line of kings collapsed altogether and a new line took over. Perhaps the line continued in a weakened state. We do not know. However some of the people had tasted life in Egypt. It would take a while to become adjusted. Not so very long after the Hyksos Expulsion which was about 1580 B.C., a great change began to come over the Land of Edom. The people commenced agricultural activities. They started to settle down. City life appeared. By about 1300 B.C. a line of fortified sites marked much of the boundary or Edom.

Was it not the return of the Hyksos peoples from Egypt which gave the impetus to accomplish this in less than 300 years?

Somewhere about this time Petra, the famous and beautiful rose-red Rock City, was most likely settled. Most scholars speak of the monuments in Petra as being of Nabataean skill (around 300 to 200 B.C.), which is no doubt true for the most part. But excavations are starting to demonstrate that the valley was occupied at earlier times as well.

The Hyksos/Edomite peoples having brought back with them some of the marvelous stone-art techniques learned in Egypt, in process of time, began to carve out rock dwellings and temples in the living rock or the faces of the mountains enclosing the site of Petra. Although the city has passed through a brilliant Nabataean stage since, let us, when looking upon these huge, rock temples, think back upon the Hyksos kings. Expelled out of Egypt, yet handing down stories or the greatness which had once been theirs and longing for greatness still; then setting about in that dry land to carve out great and beautiful temples of their own and they evidently achieved success.

Oddly, one of these immense rock temples, facing the narrow entrance passage, today bears the Arabic name "Khaznet Fir'aun" or "Treasury of Pharaoh." Another is called "Kasr Fir'aun" or "Pharaoh's Palace." It is a puzzle as to why the title "Pharaoh" so emphatically Egyptian, should crop up, seemingly without reason, at Petra. It is as if the names are trying to whisper something to us of a connection with the land of the Nile; as if saying softly, "Our ancestry harks back into a dim past when the early kings of our line were once real Pharaohs."

Edom, "A Famous Nation"
As we stated before, the moment we link Hyksos and Edom many puzzling bits of history begin to fit together. We gain an altogether new appreciation and respect for the little-known Edomites. Now we can understand why Biblical writers viewed Edom as of such importance.

They give it a prominence of position that heretofore has seemed all out of proportion. To those writers the Edomites bore with them the memory of a once great, dominating empire.

One example of the enlightenment and help our theory provides is found in connection with the passage in Ezekiel 32:17-32. Here the Prophet Ezekiel sings a sorrowful, picturesque dirge over the fall of great and powerful Egypt before the arms of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He cries that the multitude of Egypt will go down in death into the abyss; she (that is, Egypt) with the daughters of "the famous nations, unto the nether parts of the earth" (vs. 18). There, the strong among the mighty shall speak to fallen Pharaoh out of the midst of hell (vs 21)

Now, let us ask, who are these "famous nations" and the "strong among the mighty?" The Prophet Ezekiel proceeds to list the famous nations as known in his day. Most naturally the first is "Asshur" or Assyria, in verse 22, "which caused terror in the land of the living." Next is "Elam" in verse 24, which also caused its terror in the land of the living. Then "Meshech" (and) "Tubal", which are the Mashki and Tabal known to us from Assyrian inscriptions, and likewise "caused their terror in the land of the living." Then follows, to the surprise of thoughtful students, in verse 29, "Edom, her kings, and all her princes." The parade ends with "the princes of the north" (the Scythians were pushing in from the north at that time), and the "Zidonians" in verse 30. But we ask, how marches little Edom in this parade of what are described as the famous nations? Why did Ezekiel include Edom in this array of "the strong among the mighty"? Regardless of how much of this chapter is figurative, and how much literal, we are forced to admit that even down to the prophet's day Edom was viewed as a "famous nation" with something in its past to elevate it to the position of one of "the strong among the mighty."

Little toddlers do not march in a parade restricted, let us say, to accomplished scientists such as Isaac Newton, Michael Farady, Lord Kelvin, Jeans and Einstein! If Edom was the little kinglet we have heretofore thought it, it would have been barred out from being mentioned with Assyria, Elam, Mashki, and Tabal in such a listing? But the inclusion of Edom is positive proof it was considered an unusually powerful country.

We submit that, unless our theory is acknowledged, there is absolutely nothing in Edom's past to warrant it being called a famous nation. The theory we have set forth, is, so far as we are aware, the only explanation which satisfies Ezekiel's listing of "famous" "strong" and "mighty" nations recognized in his day. Evidently the memory of the enormous and powerful Hyksos/Edomite Empire had not yet faded away.

Scholars May Judge
We have gone over a wide range of evidences. We have brought forth out of our treasury for you things new and old. We are content to rest our case in the hands of our judges. We leave it to you all, and in particular to the world of scholarship, to decide and determine whether we have added anything to the solution of the problem as to "whence came the Hyksos Kings of Egypt?"

Even should our theory somehow prove to be mistaken and wrong, we trust we may stir up and trigger off further research and study of this interesting question. Archaeologists will certainly yet find more information in Egypt regarding the mysterious Hyksos. We hope they will soon investigate Edom more thoroughly, and excavate the many sites in that land. We need more light on the intriguing Hurrians, and especially on those Hurrians which inhabited Seir before the Edomite nomads displaced and absorbed them. Indeed, all of Nabataea needs further archaeological study.

We trust that the "average reader" for whom we have sought to write "things easy to be understood," will have gained from these pages not only an added interest in archaeology and the history of ancient Egypt, Edom, and the Hurrians, but a much greater interest in and a deeper respect for the Bible, in which it seems to us has been preserved the solution to our question, "Whence Came the Hyksos Kings of Egypt?"

End of Chapter Nine

[Sarah]

Appendix One
Notes and References

1. Date of the Hyksos Invasion
Prof J. H. Breasted in "A History of the Ancient Egyptians" 1919, published by Charles Scriber's Sons, New York, Section 170, gives the invasion as in 1657 BC but remarks it could be earlier. Encyclopedia Americana, Canadian Edition 1963, Article Egypt under Chronology, dates the Hyksos Dynasties XV and XVI as 1730 - 1580, after William Stevenson Smith.

2. Hyksos Leaders
Breasted in "A History of the Ancient Egyptians" section 175 argues for the city of Kadesh in Syria as the center of the Hyksos power. George A. Barton, PH D. in Archeology and the Bible, Published by ASSU, Philadelphia PA, USA, IVth Edition, 1952, pp 28-29 notes the drift of opinion toward the Hittites as either the Hyksos or the leading faction in the Hyksos hordes.

Encyclopedia Americana, Canadian Edition, Article Egypt, says "The Hyksos.... in addition to unidentifiable people, included a fair proportion of those speaking Hurrian and Semetic." The mention of "Hurrian" (Horite) is important. See also Prof. J. H. Breasted in "The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, Oriental Institute Publications, Voll III, Chicago, 1930

3. Stories of Patriarchs as Myths, Legends, Etc.
Encyclopedia Americana, Canadian Edition, under Articles Abraham, Bible etc.

4. Hyksos Monuments Destroyed
Breasted, A History of the Ancient Egyptians, Sections 173, 179

5. Meaning of the name "Hyksos"
Breasted, A History of the Ancient Egyptians, Section 172 gives "Rulers of Countries." Barton, "Archeology and the Bible" p 35 states the equivalent of the term Ruler of Countries was previously long in use in Babylonian and other Mesopotamian cities, and it would be perfectly natural for Semitic Hyksos to use it.

Encyclopedia Americana, Canadian Edition, in article "Egypt" under Hyksos Period equates the name Hyksos with the Egyptian "Hikau Khasut" or "rulers of foreign lands." Nevertheless, the idea of "shepherd" is strangely persistent. They Hyksos are constantly referred to by the most up to date writers as "nomads" and "Bedouin" etc.

Breasted, after arguing for Kadesh in Syria as the Hyksos home, speaks in Section 175 of the possibility of the Hebrew tribes in Egypt as "a part of the Bedouin allies of the Kadesh or Hyksos Empire, whose presence there brought into the tradition the partially correct impression that the Hyksos were shepherds. Were the men of Kadesh Bedouins? Our theory allows that the Hyksos were actually a shepherd people in the main at the time of the invasion of Egypt, a point the Egyptians, who despised shepherds should feel keenly and would never forget.

6. Race and Language of the Hyksos
Barton "Archeology and the Bible" pp 28-29 states most scholars have thought the Hyksos were Semites, but now some think they were Hittites or led by Hittites. On p. 35 it is suggested that they could have been Amorites. See in addition Note 2 above where the Hurrian (Horite) language is also mentioned.

7. Location of City Of Avaris
Philip Schaff's "Bible Dictionary' Eleventh Edition, (first published somewhere about 1885), Article, "Zoan," identifies Zoan with Tanis and Avaris. This city has now been tentatively identified as Tell el-Dab'a in the Nile Delta.

Breasted, "A History of the Ancient Egyptians," in Section 171, states the exact site of Avaris is still "undetermined."

Encyclopedia Americana, Can. Ed. (1953), Article, "Tanis," says, "Tanis (Hebrew, Zoan) ancient Egyptian city, south of the Delta, before the founding of Alexandria the chief commercial city of Egypt, capital of the Hyksos kings about 2100 BC." We fear the worthy encyclopedia got its directions mixed, and its date is outdated! But it agrees that the Hyksos capital is identified with Tanis.

8. Hyksos Used Horses Extensively
Breasted, "A History of the Ancient Egyptians" in Section 20, speaks of the "importation of the horse by the Hyksos."

Encyclopedia Americana, Can. Ed., Article, "History, Ancient," says, The Hyksos "contribution was the introduction of the horse and the war chariot." Again, in Article "Egypt," under Hyksos Period, it states, Barbarians though they were, the Hyksos were aided in their conquest not only by internal weaknesses of the Egyptian state, but also by their technologically superior war material, the horse and chariots, body amour, and the composite bow."

Ishmael was "an archer" par expellant (Gen 21:20). The composite bow may have been introduced by the Ishmaelites.

9. Hyksos Religion
Breasted, "A History of the Ancient Egyptians," Section l78,states, "Their patron god Sutekh is of course the Egyptianized form of some Syrian Baal."

10. Haran
The light to be brought out by the present archaeological research work at the important city of Haran will be watched by all with great interest. This city in Genesis is constantly linked very closely with the Patriarchs, and we may learn much concerning the importance of Abraham's people.

The Book of Genesis pictures the worship of Jehovah as being practiced in Haran. Laban says to Jacob, "The God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor" (Abraham's brother) "the God of their father Terah judge betwixt us" (Gen.3l:53). Nevertheless, Terah and his father Nahor also indulged in idolatry (Josh.24:3), which is probably the reason Abraham had to entirely separate from his father's with him family. Terah very likely carried with him the religion of the Moon-god Sin from Ur. For all we know he may have been the one who implanted it in Haran. We do know from early records that at Ur and at Haran wee to great centers of this religion of Sin, the Mood-god. See also the article Haran in Unger's Bible Dictionary, by Merrill F. Unger, published by Moody Press, Chicago, Second edition, 1959

11. Importance of Abraham
Encyclopedia Americana, Canadian Edition, Article "Abraham" has to admit that the higher critical school acknowledge the reality of the man Abraham and that he must have been rather important, even while the historicity of the entire Biblical account of him is impugned and discredited. "The critical view is that thee was a real Abram or Abraham (the traditions existing in both forms) with his home at Hebron, probably a considerable man form the number and the persistence of the legends about him, but that is all we know. The name of his brother and ancestry are not persons, but Arab clans.

12 Horites (Hurri)
Barton "Archeology and the Bible" Vth Edition (not IVth) gives quite some information regarding the Hurri.

We cannot but notice there was a lot of travel between Canaan and upper Mesopotamia in the Age of Abraham. In the Bible Abraham himself so journeys, Eliezer goes for Rebekah, Jacob goes himself, unknown others brought family news to Abraham about his brother's family in Haran (Gen 22:20-24) The Hittite Kingdom was in Asia Minor, but a group of Hittites live at Hebron (Gen 23:2,3,10,16-20) where not many years before the Amorites held the district. (Gen 14:13, 24) The Hittites had evidently moved in, in the interval. The Hurri or Horite Kingdom was not far from the city of Haran, yet Horites had moved into Seir, etc, just south of Canaan (Gen 14:6). It could be that Emmims, Zuzimz, and Rephaim were branches of the same people, as they seem to be significantly linked together again in Deuteronomy 2:1-23. All this indicates travel between Canaan and Upper Mesopotamia.

The Horites being such near neighbors of Abraham's relatives in Haran, might explain how Esau's family became such intimates with the Horites south of Canaan.

13. The Egyptians had no "L"

Barton, "Archaeology and the Bible," (IVth Ed.), p. 335, footnote.

14. The King held as a god
Sir C. Leonard Woolley, "Ur of the Chaldees" 1930, published by Charles Scribner's sons, New York, p. 65, speaks of the early kings of Ur being honored as gods, long before Abraham's time.

Lieut-Comm. Victor L. Trumper, R.N.R., M.R.A.S., in "The Mirror of Egypt in the Old Testament," (about 1928), Published by Marshall Morgan & Scott Limited, London England p. 122, says, "The Pharaoh was considered by his subjects and himself as a god, and endeavored to act and speak as such." Also consult any good encyclopedia on the subject.

15. Land of Uz
Schaff, "Bible Dictionary," Article "Uz," states, "It was the "General portion of the Arabian Desert east of Edom and south of Trachonitis, extending indefinitely toward the Euphrates." Unger's Bible Dictionary, Article Uz (4) adds further details.
16. Traditional Date of Job
Schaff, "Bible Dictionary," Article, "Job." "Hales places him before the birth of Abraham, Usher about 30 years before the Exodus." Unger's Bible Dictionary, Article "Job-Time and Composition" notes tremendous disagreement among Bible scholars about the date of Job.

17. Job at Orfah. Tradition.
Schaff, "Bible Dictionary," Article, Uz. "Near the Haran-gate in that city (Orfah) is 'Job's well,' which is a sacred shrine to the people because the patriarch drank of its waters."

18. Rehoboth at Rahabah by Euphrates

Schaff, "Bible Dictionary" article "Rehoboth"
Since the discovery and excavation of Mari, a very important city only about 30 miles south-east Rahabah, it has become common among scholars to ignore Rahabah altogether. However, I cannot find any reference to a close investigation of Rahabah and its immediate vicinity to determine whether there was a "city" there in the second millennium B. C.

Several factors remain to suggest that the Rehoboth of Genesis 36:37 lay somewhere near this region. 1. It was "by the river," a term otherwise understood to mean by the Euphrates. 2. As to the suggestion by some that this Rehoboth is er-Ruheibah in the Negev, south westerly from Beer-sheba, we wish to point out that we seem to have no evidence whatever that there was a "city" at that place in early times (Early or Middle Bronze Age); and, moreover, that place is not ever said to be "by the river." 3. A very important factor is that I am informed the Mari tablets actually mention a place called "Rehoboth." It is a far cry from Mari to the north western Negev. It therefore seems most doubtful that the Mari tablets refer to er-Ruhe1bah, so tiny a spot and so far away. It is far more likely to refer to a place relatively near to Mari where the tablets were unearthed. 4. It is fairly certain that Mari was only a little south of the Hurrian boundary. This indicates that Rahabah near the Euphrates, lying north westerly from Mari, was probably within Hurrian territory. If the Edomites were destroying or had destroyed the Hurrians, then Rahabah could have fallen into Edomite hands. This may be giving too wide a meaning to the Biblical statement that the Edomites destroyed and supplanted the Horites (Hurrians), but the idea should not be too readily discounted as sometimes the Biblical statements have been found to have a wider scope than at first supposed.

19. Hyksos at war with Assyrians
The story of the Hyksos preserved in "Josephus Against Apion" tells us Salatis their king feared the Assyrians, upon which Breasted comments, ("A History of the Ancient Egyptians" Section 172) "If we eliminate the absurd reference to the Assyrians," the story may be reasonable, etc. But we wish to point out that if the Edomites were the Hyksos, and the Edomite capital city had to be established at Rahabah, prior to the conquest of Egypt, then a reference to war with Assyria might indeed be quite historical.

20 Tema, Teima, or Teyma
Robert William Rogers, "Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament" 2nd Edition, about 1926, published by Oxford University Press, London, Page 374, Nabonidus King of Babylon, father of Belshazzar king of Babylon (referred to in the Book of Daniel) resided at Tema, in the Arabian Desert. See also Tema on Nabataea.net

21. Havalah, Ha'il, Hayil, in Central Arabia
"Barton, Archeology and the Bible" p 541 treats "Havalah" as meaning Arabia in general; but George Adam Smith in a much older work, "Historical Atlas of the Holy Land," identifies it with Ha'il or Hayil in Central Arabia.

22. Ruled Other Countries Before Entering Egypt
Barton, "Archaeology and the Bible," P. 35, mentions the Hyksos ruled other countries previously. Breasted, "A History of the Ancient Egyptians, Section 19, also states the Hyksos evidently ruled over a number of countries before invading Egypt.

23. Pau, Pai, Phauara, Edomite city
Schaff, Bible Dictionary, Article "Pau"
Unger's Bible Dictionary, article "Pau" admits its position is unknown

24. City of Pe, in Nile Delta
Breasted, "A History of the Ancient Egyptians" Section 34

25. Names of Hyksos Kings
"Encyclopedia Americana" Can. Ed., Article, "Egypt," under "Chronology" names the following Hyksos Kings:

Khian (Se-weser-en-ra); whom we have listed
Apepi (Aa-weser-ra); whom we call Apophis I
Apepi (Neb-khopesh-ra)
Aa-seh-ra
Apepi (Aa-kenen-ra)

Barton, "Archaeology and the Bible," p.35, says one seems to have been named 'Jacob-el' or 'Jacob-her.' Was he named after Jacob, Esau's father? If our theory is correct, Jacob was a family name amongst the ancestors to these kings

26. Manda People
Barton, "Archaeology and the Bible," (Vth edition).

27. Hyksos god Sutekh
Breasted, "A History of the Ancient Egyptians," Section 173, reports a King Apophis made an altar to Sutekh, "lord of Avaris, when he (Sutekh) set all lands under his (the king's) feet."

28. Khabiri People in Amarna Letters
Breasted, "A History of the Ancient Egyptians," Section 278, declares, "the advance of the Khabiri, among whom we must recognize bands of Hebrews and Aramaeans." Barton, "Archaeology and the Bible," gives some helpful translations.

29. A "New" King
Trumper in "The Mirror of Egypt in the Old Testament," page 68, draws attention to the Greek word, for "another" (insert Greek picture here) used of this king in Acts 7:18, which means "another of a different kind, as opposed to the Greek word (Insert second Greek word here) which is "another of a similar kind."

30. Expulsion of Hyksos Kings
Breasted in "A History of the Ancient Egyptians" Section 173 informs us the expulsion required quite some time. A siege of Avaris was necessary; then the Hyksos were besieged three years in Sharuhen.

Older translations give the siege as "six" years, but Breasted corrected his earlier translation, to three years.

31. Length of Hyksos Rule in Egypt
Breasted, "A History of the Ancient Egyptians," Section 177, gives 100 years as ample time.
Encyclopedia Americana, Canadian Edition, Article "History, Ancient," dates Hyksos rule in Egypt as 1680-1580 B.C. (See also Note 1.)

32. Siege of Sharuhen
Some authorities, following Breasted's older translation still give "six"" years for the siege; but see Note 30 above.

33. Location of Sharuhen
"Unger's Bible Dictionary" Article "Sharuhen" states "This site reveals impressive evidence of Hyksos fortifications"
Schaff, Bible Dictionary under articles "Sansannah, Hazar-susah, and Hazar-susim" treats another city seemingly near to Sharuhen. The latter two names mean, "Horse court" or "depot of horses." Being in the same group of places as Shilhim or Sharuhen (Josh.15:31-32; 19:5-6; I.Chron.4:31- "Shaaraim" is Sharuhen) It is possible we here have a Hyksos horse depot. If so, excavation of Hazar-susim might turn up more light on the Hyksos peoples.

34. Song of Moses
One cannot but wonder if the grouping of names in Exod.15:l4-l5 is not a reference to the Hyksos peoples which would still be well known to the Israelites. The name Edom would include the "Hurrians" or Horites amalgamated with them; "Palestina" would take in the Philistines at Gaza (near which Petrie found Hyksos graves) and the Avim; "Moab" comes in as an ally of Hyksos-Edom; and "Canaan" would take in the Hittite and Hivite helpers from that land, which we have referred to. Only the Ishmaelites appear to be missing. This grouping of names must be significant of some connection uniting these people in thought or purpose, and, aside from the explanation offered in this book, the author knows of no reason why these names should be thus grouped in the Song of Moses.

35. Sinai and Edom Deserts
Palestine Exploration Fund Annual III, (1915) London, England, describes this desert region on pages 15 and those following. The desert appears to be most "inhospitable" as there stated. However, this general survey of the area seemed to indicate there had been some activity in that region near the middle of the second millennium BC or a little earlier, judging from the pottery sherds, etc.

Barton in "Archaeology and the Bible" pages 35-36, mentions that Sir Flinders Petrie found two remarkable camp sites in Egypt, one about 20 miles north of Cairo, the other at On (Heliopolis), which he believed were original Hyksos camps before they began to assume Egyptian ways and civilization. The relatively crude, black pottery of these people is just what one would expect of a nomadic people just come from the inhospitable deserts of Sinai and Edom, and of Horites coming from the same regions.

End of Appendix One

[Sarah]

Appendix Two
Earliest Horses in Egypt

After the text of this book was completed, in which we postulated the presence of some horses in Egypt before the Hyksos Invasion brought them in abundance; reports of the excavation of Fort Buhen in the Sudan have come to hand. Here there was a large Egyptian fortress from the times of the XIIth and of the XVIIIth Dynasties, that is, before and after the Hyksos period.

Professor Walter B. Emery, Edwards Professor of Egyptology in the University of London, carrying out the excavations for the Egypt Exploration Society, discovered the burial of a horse definitely pre-Hyksos. He states that "on sound archaeological evidence" it antedated the Hyksos by 200 years. (See "Illustrated London News, September 12, 1959, page 250)

This single find muzzles forever the argument based solely on the silence of the monuments that there "were no horses in Egypt prior to the Hyksos Invasion." It confirms our theory that some horses had been brought into the country earlier than the times of the Hyksos.

[Sarah]

Appendix Three
Hyksos Influence in Canaanite Cities


It is definite that after the Hyksos Invasion and conquest of Egypt, the power of the Hyksos Pharaohs was strongly felt in Canaan.

Scarabs of King Apophis (Pepa or Shesha) were found at Lachish (Illustrated London News, Nov 27, 1937 page 944) Palestine Clues, by J. L. Starkey, and there are marked Hyksos levels noted in excavation such cities as Megiddo and Jericho. The indication is that much of Canaan came under Hyksos control in one way or another.