Hyksos, Kings of Egypt and the land of Edom

<< < (2/4) > >>

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. (8)

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

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page