Tommy Baas

“For Every Shepherd is an Abomination unto the Egyptians”:

Re-examining the Hebrew-Hyksos Connection

Putting into historical perspective the major interactions between the Ancient Hebrews

and their proverbial foils the Egyptians in Genesis and Exodus can be tricky. No dates nor

names of pharaohs are ever given, and what Ancient Egyptian records we have can be rather

obscure and mysterious. Revisiting Flavius Josephus’s claim that the Ancient Hebrews share a

lineal heritage with the Semitic Hyksos kings who occupied Egypt during the Second

Intermediate Period may give us a more nuanced perspective on the ancient world that might not

answer all questions and put to rest all doubts, but it helps the biblical stories starring Abraham,

Joseph, and Moses fall into a historical context that more or less aligns with Ancient Egyptian

records. Even if it cannot be satisfactorily verified that the Hyksos and the Hebrews were one

and the same people, as Josephus interprets the Egyptian priest Manetho’s version of history, it

might make even more sense to consider that they were at the very least kindred allies of a

shared Semitic heritage who interacted with and impacted each other’s histories at key moments

in their respective plights. Close attention to small details in the Bible, supplementary Midrash,

and what primary sources we have of Ancient Egyptian accounts from the time helps to draw a

picture that only makes historical sense set before, during, and after the Hyksos Invasion of the

17th and 16th Centuries BC. This is more or less exactly where traditional biblical dating would

place the stories of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses respectively anyway. To verify, we will piece

together the history between these two nations from the very beginning up through the Exodus,
see how the legacies of the Ancient Hebrews and the Hyksos Dynasty intertwine, and determine

the nature of their relationship.

To set the perspective, we acknowledge from the outset of Genesis that there have always

been two classes of men, represented by the twins Cain and Abel: the former a “tiller of soil,”

symbolic of kingship, statehood, and the active aspect of man; and the latter a “keeper of sheep,”

symbolic of the priesthood and the more passive and contemplative aspect of man (Gen. 4:2). If

we fast forward to the time directly following the Flood when the respective pro-genitors of each

the Semites, Egyptians, Canaanites, and Europeans were all still of one immediate family, we

find this dichotomy continuing to play itself out in the power struggles between men. Genesis 9

describes a scandal whereby the line of Canaan becomes forever cursed for something that his

father Ham did while grandfather Noah was drunk and naked. The result is that Canaan is made

subject to his uncles Shem and Japheth, the pro-genitors of the Semites and Europeans

respectively. This episode serves to illustrate why the Semites should feel a certain moral

superiority over the Canaanites, which plays out in the rest of the Torah. Canaan’s father Ham

meanwhile is the progenitor of the African race, including the Egyptians. His role in this episode

also seems to be reflected in how events pan out amongst the three nations as their interrelated

histories develop.

Genesis 10 proceeds with the respective generations of Noah’s sons. For Ham, this

includes, among others, Mizraim and Put (10:6), who each pro-generate a segment of the

Egyptian nation; as well as Canaan, ancestor of the Canaanites, whose descendents include,

among others, the Amorites (10:16). The descendents of Shem, ie, the Semites, include Eber

(10:21), from whence we derive “Hebrew.” Eber has two sons, Peleg and Joktan (10:25).

Genesis 10:26-29 proceeds with the lineage of the latter, and 10:30 tells us that they settled in the
region extending from Mesha to the eastern hill country of Sephar. Beyond this, we do not read

much more of the descendents of Joktan, who could be called a separate stream of Hebrews in

the sense that they descended from Eber. Peleg’s lineage is reserved for Genesis 11 and must be

the more important one for biblical purposes, as it culminates with the birth of Abram in his

father Terah’s native land of Ur of the Chaldeans (Hamite territory, according to 10:8-10). All

we are told of Peleg in Genesis 10 is that the earth became divided in his days (10:25).

This section of Genesis is commonly referred to as the “Table of Nations,” as it refers to

how the earth was divided up amongst the descendents of Noah after the Flood. In an

elaboration upon it in the Book of Jubilees, we learn that the Middle East, covering the Garden of

Eden and the land East of that extending along the tongue of the Egyptian Sea, had originally

been designated for the descendents of Noah’s eldest son Shem (8:12-17).1 This includes the

land that would come to be known as Canaan; hence why the Semites would refer to it as their

“Promised Land.” The descendents of Noah’s second son Ham are granted the hot lands of

Africa, whereby Cush is allotted the land covering parts of Mesopotamia and Seba (modern

Ethiopia), Misraim receives the land west of that, and Put receives the land further west of that

along the sea to Canaan. Misraim and Put each found parts of Egypt; the former colonizing a

valley by the Nile. When Canaan notices how choice the land from Lebanon to the river of

Egypt is, he elects not to settle in the land of his due inheritance, but instead to take up the land

of Lebanon around the border of Jordan and the sea. This territory, which had otherwise been

promised to the Semites (Jubilees 8:29), would cover what is modern day Phoenicia and

Jerusalem. In the Torah we come to know of it as the land of Canaan. In response to Canaan’s

greed, his father Ham and elder brothers Cush and Misraim scold Canaan for settling in a land

1
Lumpkin, Joseph B. The Lost Books of the Bible (2009), pp. 239-240.
that does not belong to him, predicting that his people will end up being violently uprooted from

the land and reinforcing the curse upon his seed (Jubilees 10:30-32).2

Returning to the Semite lineage, we learn from Jubilees that Peleg’s son Reu marries Ora,

the daughter of Ur, builder of the Sumerian city Ur of the Chaldees (11:1-3). The same is

otherwise known as Ur-Nammu, founder of the third Chaldean dynasty who reigned between

2113-2096 BC and builder of the last great ziggurat,3 associated with the biblical Tower of

Babel. The city of Ur was infamously rampant with sin and idolatry and the Chaldeans were

famously known as practitioners in astrology and such oracular arts (11:3-7). From Midrash like

the Books of Jubilees and Jasher, we know that Reu’s descendent Terah engages quite a bit

himself in the production and sale of idols. We learn from Jubilees 11:13-144 that Terah marries

a woman named Edna, who was the daughter of his father Nahor’s sister and a man named

Abram, in whose honor Terah names his own son, just as he would name his son Nahor after his

late father (Gen. 11:24-27).

Genesis 11:29 introduces us to Abram’s wife Sarai and Nahor’s wife Milcah, and also

conspicuously adds what seems to be a third woman named Iscah, who is apparently Milcah’s

sister by their shared father Haran, Terah’s third son. According to the Midrash, this is none

other than Sarai under a different name; one which makes her a “seer” (ie, prophet) and of royal

blood.5 This tells us that she was actually a brother to her husband Abram and that she was of

royalty before she was even re-named Sarah (“princess”). The question becomes, where did she

inherit this royalty? On the surface there is no indication that Terah or any of his family

members were of royal blood, nor is there any semblance of a Hebrew/Israelite monarchy until

2
Ibid., pg. 244.
3 Gardner, Genesis of the Grail Kings (2000), pg. 177.
4
Lumpkin, pp. 244-5.
5 Ginzburg, Luis. Legends of the Jews, Vol. 2, V:232.
the time of Saul and David (1 and 2 Samuel). On the other hand, we know from the Midrash that

Abram’s ancestry would have inherited some Chaldean royalty through Reu’s wife Ora, daughter

of Ur-Nammu.

In Ancient Mesopotamia, kingship was synonymous with kinship (ie, blood relations),6

typically of matrilinear descent,7 and believed to have come down from the gods.8 It was

customary in Mesopotamia that kings descended from such gods would take on the functional

title of “shepherd” or “shepherd king” and yield a shepherd’s crook as their royal staff, 9 some

2,000 years before the same title “good shepherd” became associated with Abraham’s

descendent Jesus, called the “King of the Jews.” Numerous Sumerian “praise poems” have been

found in which the king is repeatedly exalted as a “good shepherd” over his people.10 A good

handful of such relate to King Shulgi (ca. 2100) and his successor Ur-Namma, both who reigned

not long before, if not contemporary with, the time Abram and his family lived in Ur.11

Among the vast pantheon of Mesopotamian gods, there is a prominent pair of brothers

named Enki (or Ea) and Enlil, by whose divine grace the kingship is ordained. The former is

variously referred to as the “Serpent King” or the “Great Shepherd.” The latter is also known as

El Elyon, meaning “the God Most High.” Another variation on the same is El Shaddai; the name

by which Abraham knows God as it is revealed to him in Genesis 17:1. His cult extended from

Mesopotamia into Canaan. This would explain why, when the former land fell into the worship

of Enki’s son Marduk (aka Baal, that pagan god whose worship the Israelites continually fall

back to throughout the Bible) and the worshippers of El Shaddai become a persecuted

6 Gardner, Genesis of the Grail Kings lecture transcript. http://graal.co.uk/genesis_lecture_full.php

7 Gardner, Genesis of the Grail Kings, pg. 88.
8 Ibid., pg. 67.
9 Ibid., pg. 82.
10 http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Sumer/Praise_poems2.htm
11 Gardner, pg. 82.
minority,12 the faithful Abraham is called upon to leave town and head to the latter country (Gen.

12:1), where he is blessed for his military leadership against the invading kings by the priest-king

of the same God Most High, Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18-20). Abraham’s meeting with this

shepherd king who rules Salem (that which would become Jerusalem) gives us our first biblical

instance of a ceremonial breaking of bread and wine. Abraham’s descendents King David

(Psalms 110:4) and Jesus Christ (Hebrews 6:19-20) are also known to be priest-kings, ie,

shepherds, of the same Order of Melchizedek. According to Jasher 16:11, Melchizedek is none

other than Abraham’s ancestor Shem, the progenitor of the Semitic race. He acts as a spiritual

guide for the patriarch throughout the text.

Just before meeting Melchizedek, the patriarch is referred to as “Abram the Hebrew”; the

first time in the Bible where that designation is used (Gen. 14:13). This term “Hebrew,” which

we associate with his ancestor Eber, relates to the Mari word hibirum, referring to “the part of

the tribal people who live with the flocks,” and the derivative hibrum, meaning a man who has

left his home, as in a nomad.13 Mari was an ancient town on the banks of the Euphrates under

the control of western Semites between the 21st and 18th Centuries BC, right around the time

traditionally attributed to the ancestors, family, and descendents of Abraham. In the early 19th

Century BC it was ruled by the Amorites,14 whom we know to be of Canaanite (Gen. 10:16). In

Genesis 14:13, we find the nomadic Abram dwelling in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother

of two of his confederates in the war at hand, when he receives the news that his nephew Lot has

been captured in Sodom. Abram is here called a Hebrew in the sense that he and his small tribe

12 Gardner, pp. 63-64; 88-89.

13 Fleming, Daniel. “Mari and the Possibilities of Biblical Memory.” Beall, Judith. Class Reader, History 370: Judaism in the
Ancient World, Fall 2015, pg. 1.
14 Ibid., pg. 30.
have left their home of Ur to tend their flocks in Canaan. Before the wars with the kings in

Canaan, he had also recently sojourned from his new home to visit yet another land.

This brings us to a mysterious episode which may prove a key turning point to all that

follows: the Hebrews’ first of three visits to Egypt seeking relief from famine in Canaan. In

Genesis 12:11-12, we read what will be the first of three episodes in which a Hebrew patriarch

asks his attractive wife, for his life’s sake, to tell the local king that she is his sister and conceal

the fact that she is his wife. If it had happened just once, we might be able to write off the king’s

temporary possession of the matriarch as an undesired consequence; but by the third time when it

happens to Isaac’s wife Rebecca (Gen. 26), we get a sense that this is part of an elaborate ruse

that the Hebrews use in order to make the foreign king vulnerable and win wealth and livestock

from him in their time of need. The general understanding is that nothing intimate actually

happens between the king and the matriarch, and perhaps this is true for the two episodes

involving the king of Gerar. However, we have to ask why exactly the king and his whole

kingdom should feel so plagued by this incident and why he should bestow so much wealth upon

the patriarch before insisting that the patriarch and his wife depart untouched.

Whatever subsequent translations may say, the original Hebrew Bible clearly has the

Pharaoh say in Genesis 12:19: “Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her to myself

for a wife?”15 Further, we find in the Midrashic Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer 26 that the Pharaoh

actually wrote out a marriage contract not only giving Sarai the handmaiden Hagar, who was

15 http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8176/jewish/Chapter-12.htm
apparently his own daughter, but also giving her the land of Goshen16—the very place where the

brothers of Joseph would settle in Genesis 47, because they could find good work there as

shepherds; something that the Egyptians apparently abhorred but the reigning pharaoh welcomed

heartily.

One thing to keep in mind is that marriage to an already married woman was not unusual

in these times, neither for the Egyptian kings nor the Hebrew patriarchs (see Abraham, Jacob,

David, Solomon, etc). In fact, polygamy was a very common custom among neighboring nations

for the establishment of alliances and dynasties. Nor should it be surprising in either culture that

a man should marry his own sister. The very appellation of “sister” or “sister-wife” was a

legally-binding status amongst the Sumerians, Hittites, Egyptians, and Hebrews alike, which

gives that particular wife special status over any other secondary wives that a husband might

have.17 As previously mentioned, kingship was synonymous with kinship in Sumerian culture,

and inter-family marriage was a common practice among pharaohs. They would model

themselves after the sibling couple Osiris and Isis and put special emphasis on preserving the

royal bloodline, as it was descended from the gods. The Hebrews too put special emphasis on

keeping the bloodline pure and closely knit, as evidenced by the kinship between Abraham and

Sarah and the subsequent marriages arranged between Isaac and Rebecca (Gen. 25:20) and Jacob

and Rachel (29:10) and her sister Leah (29:16). All four matriarchs who marry the four

hereditary patriarchs are closely related by blood through Laban, a descendent of Abraham’s

half-brother and Sarah’s full-brother, Nahor.18

16 Chasidah, Yishai. Encyclopedia of Biblical Personalities, pg. 523; Margolis, Course Reader, Hebrew Studies 332, Spring 2015,
pg. 114.
17 Tuchman and Rapoport. The Passion of the Matriarchs, pg. 22; Margolis, Course Reader, Hebrew Studies 332, pg. 119.
18 Ibid, pg. 45; pg. 137.
 The notion that Abraham and Sarah are half-siblings is confirmed in Genesis 20:12,

when during a similar episode in Gerar, the patriarch tells King Abimelech that she is indeed his

sister, being the daughter of his father, but not the daughter of his mother. We know from

Jubilees 11:13-14 that Abraham’s mother is called Edna. The question becomes now, who then

is Terah’s other wife who bore Sarah? If kingship is matrilinear and synonymous with kinship in

the ancient world, and if Sarah (aka Iscah) is a princess, we should expect her mother to also be

of royal blood. While the Bible and Midrash are conspicuously silent on this question, we do

find two obscure ancient Near Eastern sources which not only answer it, but also shed some

interesting light on the mysterious events of Genesis 12. According to the Ethiopian chronicle

Nazum al-jawahir (“The String of Gems”) and the Syriac M’arath Gaze, Terah’s other wife and

Sarah’s mother is Tâhwait, aka Nfry-ta-Tjewnen, former wife of Egyptian Pharaoh Amenemhet I

and mother of Pharaoh Senusret I (aka Sesostris) of the 12th Dynasty which ruled from Thebes.

If we accept these two ancient sources, this means that Sarah is Senusret I’s maternal sister,19 on

top of being Abraham’s paternal sister. Given that it was common practice for Egyptian

pharaohs to marry their sisters in order to progress the kingship through the female line, this

would explain perfectly why the Pharaoh should be so inclined to marry her and have progeny by

her.

If we are to understand this unnamed Pharaoh of Genesis 12 to be Senusret I, we should

be able to line up the period of his reign according to Egyptian history with the time attributed to

Abraham’s lifetime. Biblical dating of this period can be even trickier than Ancient Egyptian

dating, due to the relative lack of archaeological evidence. Where biblical events fall can depend

on how one determines them according to what methods and angles. As far as accepted Ancient

19 Gardner, pg. 165.

Egyptian history goes, the reign of Senusret I is generally given as about 1971 – 1926 BC.20 The

lifetime of Abraham could fall in line with that, considering that various biblical chronologies

place it anywhere between the 21st21 and the 18th Century BC.22

Whatever the case, this scenario certainly provides a motive or two for Abraham and

Sarah’s excursion into Egypt before attempting to take Canaan, and helps to explain everything

else which happens in the chapter. It also assumes that Sarah would have had a child by this

Pharaoh, and that was the unspoken goal of the whole endeavor. Given this, it could stand to

reason that it would be through said seed that the Hebrew bloodline obtains a certain royal claim

in the land of Egypt, as God grants His people in Genesis 15:18, where we read that “the Lord

made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the brook

Misraim [river of Egypt] unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” According to Jasher 15:12,

the “brook Mitzraim” is the very place in Egypt where Abram and his wife visit in Genesis 12.

This passage should otherwise strike one as odd. How else would the seed of Abraham secure

dominion over the land from the River Misraim to the Euphrates (ie, Egyptian territory),

authority over other peoples such as the Kenites, Amorites, and Canaanites; all which had

otherwise been designated for the descendents of Ham, according to the Table of Nations?

Further, when do we ever read of any descendents of Abraham ruling in Egypt? We know that

in Genesis 47 his descendent Joseph would come to hold great authority in Egypt and that his

brothers would enjoy a good livelihood as shepherds where they are given to settle in the land of

Goshen. Does this constitute the royal possession of Egyptian territory such as Abraham’s seed

is promised in Genesis 15:18?

20 Ibid., pg. 250.

21 http://biblehub.com/timeline/
22 Codex Judaica: A Chronological Index of Jewish History, pg. xiii; Margolis, Class Reader, Hebrew Studies 331, pg. 21.
 The fact that said seed is referred to as Abraham’s is rectified by another Ancient Near

Eastern kin-based custom, which makes any children born to a woman more closely related by

law to one’s brother-husband on the paternal side than any other brother-husband she might take

on the maternal side.23 It would also be to her paternal brother Abraham that the king’s dowry

would be given, being that their father Terah was deceased; hence why Abraham accumulates

such wealth from the Pharaoh in Genesis 12:16. This may account for why the Pharaoh should

be in such a panic over his kingdom and why he wants the couple to depart untouched right

away; for he knows that an heir of his royal blood that would legally belong to Abraham could

end up threatening the authority of his dynasty down the line. Whatever the case, it appears that

in Genesis 12 the Hebrews have staked a claim on Egypt that they will cash in on in Genesis 47.

Abraham may have also known that an Egyptian king would be a descendent of Ham through his

son Misraim, and securing a touch of his bloodline would give the descendents of Shem an upper

hand in confiscating the land promised to them in the Table of Nations from the descendents of

Ham’s son Canaan, who had actually stolen it from them.

The question becomes, who is this Hebrew progeny bearing some hereditary authority

over part of Egypt? It could not be Ishmael, who is born to the Egyptian handmaid Hagar in

Genesis 16 immediately on the heels of 15:18-21; though he still could be considered both a son

of Sarah and a grandchild of the Pharaoh, according to ancient customs regarding children born

to concubines (16:2). Ishmael goes on to marry an Egyptian princess named Mahalath, daughter

of Senusret I by his other wife Nefru,24 whose daughter goes on to marry Jacob’s brother Esau

(28:9), producing the twelve kings of Edom (18:20; 36:31); all in keeping with the custom of

23Beall, History 370 class discussion.

24 Gardner, pg. 254.
kin-based marriages. Ishmael becomes the traditional progenitor of the Muslims, who have

come to rule Egypt since the end of the age of pharaohs.25

The likely candidate for the love child of Sarai and the Pharaoh would be Isaac, the

patriarchal heir to the Covenant according to Jewish tradition; Abraham’s “only son” whom he

nearly sacrifices on Mt. Moriah at the command of God, via a re-birth ceremony involving a

sacrificial ram in Genesis 22. Unlike Ishmael, Isaac is Sarah’s biological son, born in Genesis 21

following the similar episode with King Abimelech (20), according to the prophecy of three

angels who “visited” her tent earlier in Genesis 16 (but after Gen. 12) when she “laughed” at the

prospect. These three angels include Michael,26 the patron of Jerusalem, and seem to parallel the

three Chaldean priest-kings from the East who foretell the birth of Jesus to Mary according to the

position of the stars (Matthew 2:1-12). It is in Genesis 17 that the prophecy of Isaac’s birth is

really articulated, and it comes along with the name changes whereby Abram becomes Abraham

and is told that he will father many kings and nations (17:5-6) and Sarai becomes Sarah (literally

“princess”) and is similarly told that she will mother many kings and nations (17:15-16). It is

also in Genesis 17 that the rite of circumcision is introduced as a sign of the Covenant. While

this is now understood to be characteristically Jewish custom, the Greek historian Herodotus who

visited Egypt around 450 BC tells us that it was originally only performed there, and that the

Hebrews only inherited it; a notion confirmed by the examination of mummies and a bas-relief at

Karnak detailing the procedure.27 What is interesting is that even when famine hits Canaan

again, Isaac is directly told by God not to go into Egypt—as if he might be too vulnerable or

something there—and to go to Gerar instead (26:1-3).

25 Lings, Martin. Muhammed: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, pp. 1-3.
26 Bava Metzia 86b; Chasidah, pg. 524; Margolis, Course Reader, Hebrew Studies 332, pg. 115.
27 Gardner, pg. 164.
 Perhaps the progeny of Sarah’s visit with the Pharaoh and the kings said to come from

her loins refer to other descendents altogether, who perhaps remain in Egypt and are there to

later welcome Joseph and his brothers as kindred shepherds. Surely if Sarah gains possession of

Goshen through her episode with the Pharaoh in Genesis 12, she would not simply leave it

behind without any family inhabiting and ruling it. Indeed that seems to have been the whole

point of the episode, and as we will find, it connects up to and makes sense out of Genesis 46:32-

34.

We know that important Canaanite populations first appeared in Egypt towards the end of

the 12th Dynasty roughly around 1800 BC,28 which would fall at least a century short of Senusret

I’s rule, but agree with some biblical datings of Abraham’s time. By 1720 BC, said Canaanite

populations had formed an independent realm in the eastern Nile Delta.29 Goshen falls within

the same region of Avaris that would become the dynastic capital city of the Asiatic Hyksos

“shepherd kings” of Syro-Phoenician origin who occupied and ruled Lower Egypt during its

Second Intermediate Period.30 In the time intervening the first settlement of Canaanites in the

Nile Delta and the rise of the Hyksos kings from among them, their rulers had coexisted with the

Egyptian 13th and 14th Dynasties.31 The Brooklyn Museum houses what has been dubbed the

Brooklyn Papyrus, a 13th Dynasty/ Middle Kingdom document dating from mid-18th Century BC

Thebes which lists biblical Hebrew names of domestic slaves employed in household service.

The document refers to these as “Asiatics,”32 but also includes the term hapiru, believed to refer

to Hebrews.33

28 Ryholt, K.S.B. The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800-1550 BC (1997).
29 Ibid.
30 Jewish Study Bible, footnotes, pg. 92.
31 Ryholt.
32 Beall, History 370 Course Reader, pg. 2.
33 Ibid., pg. 42; Lichtman.
 Like the Hebrews, the similarly Semitic Hyksos could be defined as a nomadic foreign

people who had left their homeland to tend their flocks as shepherds.34 When they came to rule

Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, they did so as foreign invaders from the East who

set up a vassal state in Thebes.35 Manetho’s definition of the Hyksos as “shepherd kings” is

often construed by modern scholars as an etymological misnomer, but this would be ignorant of

the fact that these Syro-Phoenician kings were indeed “shepherds” after the aforementioned

Mesopotamian style of kingship, whereby a king was praised as a “good shepherd” over his

people; a concept that had likely made its way into the Hyksos homeland via the regular caravan

trade they enjoyed with the Mari along the banks of the Euphrates. This land was controlled by

western Semites around the time of Abraham and the advent of the Hebrews; a term identified

with the Mari word hibirum, referring to a nomadic tribe of shepherd people. Among said

Semites who ruled Mari were the Amorites, Canaanite descendents and hosts to Abram during

the battle of Genesis 14. According to the Dictionary of the Ancient Near East (2010), the

Hyksos who ruled Egypt for some time were of this very Amorite origin.36 In other words, they

were essentially Semitic in nature, while hereditarily Canaanite, and may have even anciently

been referred to as “Hebrews” by the same Mari who knew Abram as such. Accepted history

gives us roughly two or three centuries between the reign of Senusret I and the advent of the

Hyksos rule in Egypt. For this theory to hold up, that time span would have to align with the life

spans of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph; which is doable considering the long life spans of

the patriarchs.

34 Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion, I:14:82-84.

35 Gardner, pp.169-70.
36 Bienkowski, Piotr and Alan Millard, editors., Dictionary of the Ancient Near East. U. of Pennsylvania Press (2010). pg. 16.
 The Hebrews’ third and final excursion into Egypt during a time of famine would fall to

the children of Jacob (Gen. 37-50). Joseph is favored amongst his brothers, though younger, by

virtue of being the first son of Rachel, the preferred wife. Interestingly enough, it would be

Ishmaelites and Midianites (descendents of Abraham’s third wife, Keturah; 1 Chron. 1:32) who

procure Joseph’s entry into Egypt (37:28-36). After serving time as a slave and a prisoner in

Egypt through an episode that vaguely recalls the 19th Dynasty Egyptian “Tale of Two

Brothers,”37 Joseph wins favor with the Pharaoh by interpreting his dreams concerning seven

years of plenty and seven more of a famine (Gen. 41), which also recalls a very early Egyptian

myth about “The Seven Year Famine,” dating from the reign of the 3rd Dynasty king Zoser, build

of the very first pyramid.38 The question might be raised how Joseph, a Hebrew slave, should

know so much more about the regular cycles of the Nile than the king of Egypt. Has he not

already been immersed in such common Egyptian traditions, or is he perhaps an invading foreign

ruler, like a Hyksos king of the 15th or 16th Dynasty?

Whatever the case, the Pharaoh gratefully honors Joseph—a Hebrew slave imprisoned for

allegedly raping the wife of his master Potipher, the Pharoah’s officer—by making him ruler

over all of Egypt; virtually a king in every respect except in title (Gen. 41:40-44). He is also

given the Egyptian name Zaphnath-paaneah and an Egyptian wife, Asenath, daughter of Poti-

pherah, priest of On. From what we know of both Hebrew and Egyptian kin-based customs, this

marriage between a prominent Hebrew and an unrelated, prominent Egyptian should strike us as

conspicuous. Why does the great Hebrew patriarch marry a royal Egyptian princess, and why

should the two boys born by her be blessed by their grandfather Jacob-Israel to be counted

37 Precourt. Classics 390.

38 Ibid.
among the twelve patriarchs of his tribal lineage? This seeming discrepancy is answered by the

Midrash in a very fascinating way. According to the Torat HaChidah, this royal Egyptian

mother of Joseph’s two sons who become Israelite patriarchs is actually a child of Israel

herself.39 This might make more sense of things, but how is it possible? The answer seems to be

spelled out between the lines of the Scriptures.

We understand from Genesis 46:26-27 that the souls of the house of Jacob who enter

Egypt number 70, but the conspicuous math of the passage only adds up to 69. Further, there is a

thirteenth member of Jacob’s family conspicuously missing from this whole story: his only

daughter, Dinah. Whatever happened to her? The Pirkei d’Rabi Eliezer tells us that after she

was raped by the Shechemite prince in Genesis 34, she gave birth to an illegitimate daughter who

was banished from the compound, according to family custom. The angel Michael found her

beneath a thorn-bush and transported her into Egypt via a passing caravan, where she was

adopted by Potiphar and raised by his barren wife. Her story resembles Joseph’s in many

respects, and it is she—his own half-niece—who apparently becomes his Egyptian wife,

Asenath, a priestess of On. Taboo as it may seem to us, such a relationship would be no different

than that between their ancestors Isaac and Rebecca or Jacob and Leah and Rachel. According

to the same Midrash and the Rabbeinu Bachya, Joseph recognized his kin by an amulet given her

by Jacob before she was cast away, which bore either the name of Israel or that of God.40

We are struck with yet another curiosity when, after Joseph has revealed himself to his

visiting brothers, he advises them to tell the Pharaoh that they, like their shared Semitic ancestors

before them, are shepherds by trade, because “all shepherds are an abomination unto the

Egyptians.” It is apparently by telling the Pharaoh this that they would be permitted to tend their

39 Tuchman and Rapoport, Moses’ Women, pg. 5.

40 Ibid., pp. 5-6.
flocks over in Goshen, a hilly land by the Delta that would be a good place for shepherds to tend

their flocks (Gen. 46:31-34). This dialogue should raise a question or two. First of all, what do

the Egyptians have against shepherds? And if they are such an abomination to them, why then

should the Pharaoh bless them so wholeheartedly? Not only does he welcome the children of

Israel to be shepherds in the best of Egypt; he even requests that any active men among them be

made rulers over his own royal cattle (Gen. 47:6). The only plausible way to reconcile this

seeming discrepancy would be for the Pharaoh of Egypt himself to not be an Egyptian. This

seeming absurdity is of course completely possible if the king in question was actually of the

Hyksos Dynasty—those invading Semitic Syro-Palestinians referred to as “shepherd kings” that

ruled Egypt from Avaris in the land of Goshen. If lining up the time of Abraham with the reign

of Senusret I is tricky but plausible, there is a very definite consensus among the various systems

of biblical dating that the time of Joseph agrees with the time of the Hyksos Dynasty in Egypt,

dated to between 1680-1540 BC.41

According to Josephus, the term Hyksos is not just interpreted as “shepherd kings,” but

also more agreeably to ancient history as “captive shepherds,” in respect to Joseph, who told the

king that he was a “captive,”42 but also perhaps to the whole of the Hebrew nation who wound

up captives in Egypt. This theory also rectifies yet another biblical curiosity: why after the 400-

year gap between Genesis and Exodus the Israelites’ good relationship with their Egyptian hosts

should be so bitterly reversed. When we read in Exodus 1:8 that a new king arose over Egypt

“who did not know Joseph,” it is understood that this is a whole new dynasty; one that would not

have the same kindred relationship with the Hebrews as the Hyksos kings had. The Second

41 Jewish Study Bible, footnotes, pg. 92.

42 Josephus, Against Apion, I:14:83, 92.
Intermediate Period has ended and the Egyptians have taken back their country from the Asiatic

occupiers; begin the golden age of Ancient Egyptian history and the time of the biblical Exodus.

When the baby Moses, whom some identify with the controversial monotheistic Pharaoh

Akhenaten (c. 1367-1361 BC),43 is spared in a reed basket floating down the Nile, it resembles

not just an Ancient Near Eastern birth myth such as that attributed to the Akkadian king

Sargon,44 but also an Egyptian fertility rite in which the Pharaoh’s daughter, acting as Isis or

Hathor, comes out to bathe in the Nile and spare a child brought to her by the river god which

otherwise drowns all the others, like so many victims of the Great Flood.45 In this sense, Moses is

identified with the Egyptian god Osiris, whose body was interred in a tamarisk tree. It would seem that

Moses’ mother and sister, the two nursemaids of Exodus 2:2-10, were aware of this ritual and

waited for the right time to set themselves in the right positions to make the Egyptian fertility rite

work in their favor. Moses’ adoptive mother, the Egyptian Princess Batya, is considered an

honorary Hebrew in her role as a sympathetic matriarch, who even goes against the will of her

powerful Egyptian father to fulfill the prophecy of the Israelite God.46

According to Midrash recorded in Luis Ginzburg’s Legends of the Jews, Vol. 2, it is

during Moses’ flight from the Pharaoh that he finds himself recruited in a military-political role

reminiscent of that which Abram takes on in Genesis 14. A war has broken out between the

Ethiopians—otherwise known then as the Cushites or Nubians; mortal enemies of the Egyptians,

43 Gardner, pg. 257.

44 Ibid., pg. 186.
45 Beall, Judith. Class discussion, History 370, Fall 2015.
46 Tuchman and Rapoport, Moses’ Women, pg. 80-86.
who like the Hyksos, would take over the land at one point (25th Dynasty)47—and some

Canaanite nations to the East that had hitherto been subject to them.48 For his assistance to the

Ethiopian king Kikanos, Moses is made commander-in-chief, and subsequently even the King of

Ethiopia himself, whereby he is given Kikanos’s widow Queen Adoniah to wife. Recalling his

covenantal admonition not to marry descendents of Ham, Japheth, or Canaan, Moses does not

ultimately consummate the marriage. After forty years serving as their governor, he leaves the

Ethiopian throne to the widow’s son Monarchos and heads to Midian, land of Abraham’s

descendents through Keturah, where he meets the woman with whom he does consummate a

marriage—the daughter of the idolatrous priest of On named Jethro.

Similar to Asenath or Batya, Zipporah is another foreign but kindred woman who plays a

key role in the Israelite plight. Warding off other shepherds, he meets her at a well from which

he helps her draw water (Ex. 2:16-17), just as Jacob had once done for the shepherdess Rachel

(Gen. 29:2-10). At the time Moses is on the run from the Pharaoh, who is determined to kill him

for killing the taskmaster who was oppressing a Hebrew slave in Goshen49 (Ex. 2:15). This fact

would help to explain the otherwise odd episode of 4:24-26, where “the Lord” tries to kill him

and Zipporah spares his life by hastily circumcising him and their child. It tells us that perhaps

not every “Lord” mentioned in the five books composed by the Egyptian-born Moses necessarily

refers to the Hebrew God, as it was customary among the Egyptians that their king should be

seen as a god. It also tells us that even generations after Abraham, circumcision was still

recognized as a specifically Egyptian custom rather than a Hebrew one. In fact, it is apparently

here a means by which to distinguish an Egyptian from a Hebrew; a fact which Zipporah took

advantage of to conceal Moses’ Hebrew descent from the bloodthirsty Pharaoh.

47 Precourt, Bruce. Course Reader, Classics 274: Ancient Egyptian Civilization, Spring 2015.
48 Ginzburg, Legends of the Jews, Vol. 2., IV:80.
49Ibid., IV:8:73.
 It is finally at this point that we turn to the Near Eastern history handed down to us

through the Hellenistic Age; arguably the closest, most complete thing we have to a primary

source on the events in question besides the Bible, if a bit indirectly and with a particular cultural

agenda in mind. In his work Against Apion, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c. 37 – 100 AD)

employs excerpts from an otherwise lost work by the Graeco-Egyptian priest Manetho (c. 3rd

Century BC.) called the Aegyptica (History of Egypt) in order to prove to the Hellenistic world

the antiquity of his race. Manetho himself worked primarily from older Egyptian records and

traditions, which he translated into Greek for the Ptolemaic Kingdom. The excerpts which

Josephus shares concern the Hyksos invasion of and expulsion from Egypt, which he endeavors

to relate to the biblical account of the Israelite Exodus out of Egypt.

The first excerpt begins during the reign of a king named Timaus, when “men of ignoble

birth” (ie, not Egyptian) from the east were so bold as to make expedition into Egypt and

somehow manage to easily subdue it with unprovoked force. Taking Egypt’s governors under

their power, they went on to pillage and plunder the cities and temples, killing many and taking

their women and children into slavery.50 This is obviously the Hyksos and clearly does not

resemble what we know of the Hebrews of the biblical Exodus. Joseph and his brothers may

have sojourned into and earned power in Egypt pretty smoothly, but that may be because their

Semitic allies the Hyksos had already taken Egypt by force by the time the Israelites arrived

there.

50
Josephus, Against Apion I:14:75-76, in Whiston, William, translator., The New Complete Works of Josephus. Grand Rapids,
MI: Kregel Publications (1999).
 According to the account, the Hyksos shepherd-kings and their descendents “kept

possession of Egypt for 511 years,”51 though modern dating only gives their time of rule about

140 years. Such a disagreement is not at all surprising. Between Manetho’s records and

accepted modern Egyptology, there are often discrepancies between king names, their

successions, and the lengths of their reigns. It also should be kept in mind that the Hyksos had

inhabited part of Egypt for some time before they actually rose to power.

One of said eastern invaders named Salatis went on to make himself pharaoh of a new

dynasty, living in Memphis while collecting tribute from both upper and lower Egypt, and

rebuilding the city of Avaris with a walled fortress in the Saite nome. He also set up garrisons

in strategic locations, with the particular aim of going on to take Assyria next.52 The name of

this first Hyksos ruler reflects the title shalit given to Joseph when he became the Pharaoh’s

governor in Genesis 42:6,53 whereby he revolutionized the system of tribute owed to the king

(Gen. 47:26).

In Manetho’s kinglist for the 15th Dynasty, which does not come to us through the filter

of Josephus but rather derives from even more ancient records called Syncellus kept by a certain

Africanus, there is no mention of any Salatis,54 though the first Hyksos king is given as Saites or

Sethroite, for whom the local nome is named. It may be that Salatis and Saite/Sethroite are more

or less but transliterated variations of each other, as they may also be with Set/Seth. In

Manetho’s History of Egypt as it comes down to us through Josephus, Salatis rebuilt the city of

Avaris with strong walls in said Saite (Sethroite) nome, a territory sacred to Set, or as the Greeks

called him, Typhon. To the Egyptians, Set was the mortal enemy of the great Egyptian god

51 Josephus, I:14:84.
52 Ibid., I:14:77.
53 Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism. Berkely: University of California Press (1998), pg. 57.
54 Cory, I.P. The Ancient Fragments Containing What Remains of the Writings of Sanchoniatho, Berossus, Abydenus,

Megasthenes, and Manetho.

Osiris and his son Horus.55 To the Semites, Set could be identified with Seth, Adam’s son who

pro-generated the redemptive purer race of mankind (Gen. 5) after Cain killed Abel (Gen. 4). In

the Egyptian legend of “The Quarrel of Apophis and Sekenre [the Theban vassal king],” which

depicts the former Hyksos’ king demanding that the latter vassal king in Thebes subdue the

rebellious clamor of the native Egyptians, the Hyksos King Apophis worships no other gods but

Seth,56 just as good Hebrews vow to worship no other god but that worshipped by their

ancestors, descended from Seth.

The vassal kings in Thebes eventually manage a successful insurrection led by King

Alisphragmuthosis, whereby the majority of the shepherds are ultimately subdued and driven out

of all other parts of Egypt. Still a faction remains in Avaris, protected by the strong walls they

built. A battle ensues between the Hyksos and Alisphragmuthosis’ son and heir, the rebel vassal

king Thummosis;57 obviously the same known otherwise to history as Thutmose I.58 After a

frustrated attempt at a siege of Avaris, the warring forces come to an agreement whereby the

Hyksos can go unharmed if they leave Egypt with all their families and effects. So it is that no

less than 240,000 of them set out from Egypt through the wilderness toward Syria. Out of fear

for the Assyrians however, they go on to build a city called Jerusalem instead, in the country

now known as Judea.59

This is what Josephus purports to be the Egyptian version of the events of the Exodus, in

which there are certainly some striking similarities, though definitely a few differences to

reconcile. One significant discrepancy lies in how in this account, the Egyptians wish to drive

out the Hyksos rulers forcefully; whereas in the Bible they wish to forcefully prevent the Hebrew

55 Precourt, Classics 390.

56 Ibid.
57 Ibid. I:14:86-88.
58 Bard, Kathryn A. An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing (2008), pg. 210.
59 Josephus, I:14:88-90.
slaves from leaving. On this point we need to make a distinction between the Hyksos and

Hebrews, who are not necessarily to be understood as one and the same, but at least as allies of

kindred heritage. This notion we will see play out in the rest of Manetho’s account, whether

Josephus acknowledges it or not. The discrepancies we find may constitute a conflation of

events from different perspectives, with various elements either confused, omitted, or amended;

be it by Manetho, Josephus, the Bible, or a combination thereof.

One objection put forth by modern skeptics is that the negotiated truce bears no

resemblance to what happens in the Bible story.60 Perhaps it does in fact, but in a qualified

sense. In the Bible, there is much magical competition between the Pharaoh and Moses before

the former finally gives in and says, just like Thummosis does in the Manetho excerpt, that the

people with all their families and effects can leave unharmed (Ex. 12:31). In this sense, there is

just such a negotiated truce in the Bible story; though the Pharaoh ultimately changes his mind

and tries, unsuccessfully, to pursue his fleeing captives (Ex. 14).

While Manetho records that no less than 240,000 Hyksos left Egypt, Exodus 12:37 tells

us that 600,000 children of Israel followed Moses out of Egypt. Of course, such vast, round

numbers can be chalked up to loose exaggeration, and this detail is essentially inconsequential.

The notion that they were heading to Syria would make sense for the Hyksos, but not so much

for the biblical Israelites if their whole dream was to get back to the Promised Land of Canaan.

Were it not for that notion, perhaps we could relate this to Exodus 13:17, where God has His

people pass not through the land of the Philistines—a coastal trade route connecting the Nile

Delta with Canaan and Syria—lest they see war and decide to turn back to Egypt. The fact that

the shepherds of Manetho’s history ultimately head toward Canaan is just as much in keeping

with Hyksos heritage as it is with Hebrew, since the latter also trace their roots back to the Fertile

60 Gruen, pg. 56.

Crescent.61 Still revisionists threatened by any hints at a Hebrew-Hyksos connection write off

this striking mention of a mass migration to Judea as either posthumously interpolated by

Josephus or simply insignificant.62

Later in Against Apion, Josephus shares more Egyptian records from Manetho, noting

how in this case the priest was not working from written records, but from “what rumors and

reports passed abroad about the Jews.”63 The Jewish historian asserts that the Egyptian historian

introduced into his records the incredible idea that the Egyptians, who were prone to leprosy and

such, had intermingled with the Jews, whereby they were condemned to leave Egypt lest they

contaminate their sacred race. The record goes that King Amenophis, desiring to see the gods

for himself, endeavored to purify Egypt of such lepers and other impure peoples by isolating

them to the east side of the Nile, where they would work the quarries.

Josephus asserts that it was Manetho’s intention to maliciously characterize the Jews as

said lepers and impure people quarantined to the quarries. Skeptics point out that it is Josephus,

and not Manetho, who makes the connection between his Jewish people and the lepers and other

such afflicted people mentioned in the excerpt. The Egyptians, they say, would have no

malicious reason to do such a thing in relating their history to the Greeks.64 This objection

assumes that Manetho was inventing the whole story at the time he put it down in Greek, rather

than relating what he knew from ancient traditions, as Josephus himself tells us. What does it

matter if the Ptolemaic recipients of Manetho’s historical records were on good terms with the

Jews or not and would have no interest in Egyptian polemic against them? This supposes some

kind of anachronistic political agenda affecting the contents of Manetho’s records, when all that

61 Berlin, Adele and Marc Zvi Brettler, The Jewish Study Bible. New York: Oxford University Press (2004), footnotes, pg. 92.
62 Gruen, pg. 56.
63 Josephus, I:26:229-37.
64 Gruen, pg. 56; 63-64.
matters to their integrity is the fact that the Egyptians and Jews of the time in question were not

on good terms with each other when the events therein described actually occurred.

If Manetho does not mention the Jews by name in his history, it is of little importance. In

fact, it would reek of anachronism if he did. The Egyptian priest was conveying his people’s

history to the Greeks from ancient records and traditions culled from times long before the

people we now call Jews would have been referred to as such; nor would they even be a

sovereign nation known as Israel until some time after the events of the Exodus. When they first

entered Egypt, Israel was but a new name given to Jacob, titular forefather of an extended family

of but yet seventy people, including the original twelve tribal patriarchs. If they were known

amongst Cannaanites as Hebrews, it was because they were nomadic shepherds like the Hyksos

of the same time and place were. There is little indication that “Hebrew” was a term used to

describe an organized nation of any significance at the time.

Along similar lines fails the dubious argument that if Manetho’s narrative was to be an

Egyptian rejoinder against the Jewish version of events, this must pre-suppose that the Egyptians

would have to have been exposed to said Jewish version of events, and even the Septuagint

recorded roughly around the same time would have been too recently released to warrant such a

swift counterpoint from the Egyptians.65 This again presumes that Manetho was inventing new

tales at the time and not regaling from ancient tradition, as we already know he was. Further,

why would the Egyptians need to have been exposed to a recorded Jewish version of events in

any form or at any time whatsoever in order to record their own version of events, counter-

polemic or not, if the events in question are a part of their history too?

65 Ibid., pg. 60.

 The basic details of Manetho’s narrative agree with a first-hand account we have from a

citizen named Ahmose, fighting in the campaigns of Ahmose I and Tuthmose I. 66 Josephus

accuses Manetho of inventing King Amenophis and thereby neglecting to number the length of

his reign and ascribing fabulous stories to his reign, as if forgetting that he had already related

the story of the shepherds’ departure to Jerusalem some 518 years prior.67 In actuality, it would

seem that between the two excerpts we are really dealing with two separate but related incidents,

conflated together in a manner that would account for the confusion in kingly reigns and the

different theories concerning the dating of the biblical Exodus. What Josephus may be missing

here is the notion that the enslavement of the Hebrews logically should begin after the expulsion

of the Hyksos and not before or during it; hence the Hyksos expulsion and the Hebrew Exodus

should not be considered one and the same, but related, subsequent events separated by hundreds

of years. This notion is even supported by Josephus’s own reading of Manetho, whether or not

he sees it himself. On this point we may also note that there does not even need to be this huge

gap in years between reigns, and Manetho’s dating of kingly reigns is not nearly as accurate as

Josephus purports it to be. On the other hand, Josephus owes his primary source a little more

credibility than he grants it concerning the existence of a King Amenophis. Contrary to what he

asserted in the 1st Century AD, modern Egyptology now recognizes a handful of kings named

Amenhotep who happen to fall in the same dynastic line as Ahmose and Tuthmoses.68 As a

matter of fact, some scholarship places the Exodus during the reign of Amenhotep II (c. 1450-

1425 BC) based on the statement in 1 Kings 6:1 that Solomon began the construction of the

Temple during the fourth year of his reign (961 BC), 480 years since the Exodus.69

66 Beall, Judith. Class Reader, History 201: The Ancient World, Fall 2014, pp. 21-22; Pitchard, James B., editor. “Expulsion of the
Hyksos,” The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Princeton, 1958, pp. 173-175.
67 Josephus, I:26:230.
68 Bard, pp. 57, 209, 213, 236.
69 Whiston, pg. 95.
 Otherwise this Amenophis of Manetho’s account has been identified as Amenhotep III

(ca. 1391 – 1353 or 1388 – 1351 BC), whose controversial son Akhenaten would stir up a

monotheistic revolution in the face of Egypt’s traditional polytheism, leading some to associate

him with Moses. The character of Osarsiph (Osiris) in Manetho’s account has been identified

with both Moses and/or Akhenaten. Of course the latter ruled from Armana, aka Akhetaten, and

not Avaris, and had no connection to the Hyksos Dynasty, which by that time had already been

deposed and driven out. It is possible that the Armana Period could have coincided with the time

of the biblical Exodus, or at the very least reasonable to speculate that one event had some

connection with the other.70

The generally accepted dating of the Exodus places it a couple centuries later during the

reign of Rameses II (c. 1279-1213), who transplanted the Egyptian capital from Thebes to the

old Hyksos capital of Avaris, forcing the Hebrew slaves to build his cities of Pithom and Pi-

Raamses over it. This could indicate a connection between the Hyksos and the Hebrews if the

latter were being forced to rebuild the Egyptian capital over the ruins of the Hyksos’ old

stronghold; a very Egyptian way to embarrass a squashed insurrection. The dating of the Exodus

to the reign of Rameses II is scripturally supported by Exodus 1:11 and archaeologically backed

up by an excavated Egyptian document from the time known as the Leiden Papyrus. This latter

speaks of an official in the court of Rameses II who ordered that grain rations should be

distributed to “the soldiers and to the Apiru [Hebrews] who transport stones to the great pylon of

70
Osman, Ahmed. “Egypt Remembers: Ancient Accounts of the Great Exodus.” Ancient Origins (2014).
Ramasses.”71 Egyptian records place Pi-Rameses along the eastern Nile Delta, right by the land

of Goshen where the Israelite shepherds dwelled.72 It has been positively identified by Austrian

archaeologist Manfred Bietak to line up with the period of the Exodus. The same region was

found to contain a plethora of Asiatic/ Canaanite remains in the area of the slave houses. 73

Yet two more excavated Egyptian documents support the Rameses theory of the Exodus

dating, while also shedding some light on the events related in Manetho’s second excerpt.74 First

there is the so-called “Israel Stele” dating from 1210 BC during reign of Rameses’ son

Merenptah, which describes the pharaoh’s victories over a handful of nations in Canaan. Most

significantly, it gives us our earliest archaeological reference to the Israelites as a nation where

we read that, “Israel is laid waste, his seed is not.” The fact that the nation is said to have been

effectively wiped off the map does not necessarily negate the biblical version which states that

the Israelites escaped to Canaan; rather it speaks to the extent to which the proud Egyptians were

known to exaggerate their victories and whitewash their losses.75 Then there is the Elephantine

Stele dated from around the same time which records a renegade Egyptian faction bribing

Asiatics already living there to assist them in a rebellion which ultimately fails. Such an incident

supported by archaeology makes all too much sense out of the events of Manetho’s account via

Josephus,76 particularly concerning what happens next.

The narrative goes on that after the lepers and polluted peoples have worked for awhile in

such miserable slavery, they successfully petition the king to set apart the city of Avaris, now

desolate of the shepherd kings who had previously ruled from there, as a protective habitation for

71 Beall, Judith. Class discussion, History 370, Fall 2015, pg. 43; Lichtman, Rabbi Dovid. “Archaeology of the Bible,” Society
Today (2001). www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Bible.
72 Ibid., pg. 42.
73 Ibid.
74 Ibid.
75 Whiston, pg. 95;
76 Ibid., pg. 43.
them. In this we find some relative agreement with Exodus 1:11. It is worth noting how in

Exodus 4:6, Moses’ hand is made leprous and subsequently healed by God as a sign of His

power. Later in Numbers 5:2 we read that Moses himself separated the lepers from amongst the

Israelite camp in the Wilderness; a fate that even his own sister Miriam was made to suffer

temporarily as punishment for reproaching him (12:10). From both Manetho’s narrative and

these biblical examples, we understand leprosy in such contexts to refer not necessarily to a

physical ailment but to a state of spiritual impurity.

Having secured a stronghold in Avaris, the quarantined lepers begin to plot their

rebellion. Among them there are learned priests, and a prophecy is going around that certain

people will come to their aid and help them conquer Egypt.77 Said prophecy reminds us of that

concerning the coming of a savior who would lead the Hebrew slaves out of Egypt. Enter

Osarsiph (a corruption of Osiris), appointed ruler from amongst the priests of Heliopolis (On)

confined to Avaris. He sets up oaths and laws for them opposite to Egyptians customs, charging

them to reject the worship of Egyptian gods, smash their idols, slaughter their sacred animals,

and make ready for war against them.78 All these details should strike a Bible-reader as very

familiar. Some of them could even be construed in light of the ten plagues. According to the

Manetho account via Josephus, this Heliopolitan-born priest was renamed Moses, signifying one

preserved from out of the water (cf. Ex. 1:10), when he went over to the side of the lepers.

Stating that Manetho does not miss the truth by much, Josephus takes him to task on the notion

that his nation’s great prophet Moses, whom the Egyptians acknowledge to be a person of

77 Ibid., I:26:236.
78 Josephus, I:26:236-240.
wonderful divinity, was Heliopolitan by birth. They at least agree that the Hebrew people were

not.79

This Osarsiph has alternately been identified with the revolutionary monotheist

Akhenaten, whom some also been identify with Moses. Of course Akhenaten ruled from

Armana, aka Akhetaten, and not Avaris, and had no connection to the Hyksos Dynasty, which by

that time had already been deposed and driven out. It is possible that the Armana Period could

have coincided with the time of the biblical Exodus, or at the very least reasonable to speculate

that one event had some connection with the other.80 It can be no coincidence that Akhenaten’s

revolution falls right in between the defeat of the Hyksos by the 18th Dynasty and the rise of

Rameses in the 19th. The fact that the two Manetho excerpts skip right over the Armana Period

should be no surprise. After all, it is the customary way for the Egyptian priesthood to write out

heretical leaders from their archives. Apparently this conspicuous gap in Manetho’s history was

enough to confuse Josephus.

Now it remains for us to take to task those revisionists who would insist that Josephus’s

second introduction of Osarsiph whereby he is identified as Moses seems anomalously contrived,

as if it were an interpolation on the part of Joseph into the records of Manetho, of which we have

no other original. Said revisionists have nothing of substance with which to back up this claim,

and the content of the passage should speak for itself. Whether Josephus or his doubters would

like to admit it or not, there is no reason that a priest of Heliopolis must be Egyptian and not

Hebrew-born. In fact, we even find a precedent for the contrary in the immediate family of

Joseph, aka Zaphnath-paaneah, earlier in Genesis 41:45. Moses himself similarly marries into

79 Ibid., I:30:278; 31:279-87.

80
Osman, Ahmed. “Egypt Remembers: Ancient Accounts of the Great Exodus.” Ancient Origins (2014).
the same priesthood through his Midianite wife Zipporah, daughter of the priest Jethro, just

before he is first addressed by God while tending his father-in-law’s sheep on Mount Horeb (Ex.

2:16-21; 3:1-2).

The Hebrews’ separate but kindred heritage with the Hyksos is proven by what happens

next in Josephus’s account of Manetho’s narrative.81 The rebel leader Moses sends ambassadors

to those shepherds who had been previously driven out to Jerusalem by the Egyptians, inviting

them to assist his people in a revolt against their common enemies, with the promise that in so

doing, they would be returned to their former stronghold in Avaris which they had re-built for

them. The Hyksos receive this invitation with hearty enthusiasm and return to Egypt post

haste.82 This tells us quite clearly that the Israelites and the Hyksos are not one and the same

people, but sympathetic allies.

Meanwhile Amenhophis and the other Egyptians leaders grow nervous, hiding their idols

and sacred animals. The king himself stays back, but he sends his son Rameses off to war with

the enemy, taking as allies the Ethiopians.83 A bloody battle ensues in which the shepherds

decimate the Egyptian idols and drive out their priests.84 It is unclear by the end of the narrative

who exactly “won” the war. That much we leave up to known history and respective Egyptian

and Hebrew perspectives to decide. Not surprisingly, excavated Egyptian documents relating to

such incidents make them the victors. At the same time, this should be the point where in the

Bible we read of the Hebrews’ successful Exodus out of Egypt by which they went on to re-

claim Canaan.

81 Ibid. I:29:241-9.
82 Ibid., I:29:241-3.
83 Ibid. I:29:243-247.
84 Ibid. I:26:248-9.
 Whatever the case, the fact that we have all these seemingly conflicting accounts from

naturally conflicting perspectives that thinly conflate the plight of the Hebrews with those of the

Hyksos should be taken not necessarily as a notion to negate the veracity of all sides of the coin,

but rather can be taken to paint a more nuanced and complete picture of what may have actually

happened along the Mediterranean some time between the 17th and 13th Centuries BC. It is

reasonable to assume that Manetho, who derived his information from the preserved archives of

the Egyptian priesthood and their oral traditions, gives us a faithful account of the Egyptian

version of events. Unfortunately Josephus’s flawed, but ultimately not too far off, interpretation

of it has condemned it to the skepticism of modern scholarship, and for no fault of his own,

Manetho’s credibility has been dismissed. Josephus is correct that Manetho’s excerpts provide

the Egyptian account of the Exodus and prove the antiquity of his Jewish race, though he

misidentifies them as the invading Hyksos while simultaneously correctly identifying them as the

leprous shepherds. While the Hyksos shepherd kings and the Hebrew shepherds may not

necessarily have been one and the same people, they were of anciently kindred Semitic heritage

with intimately intertwined histories; a notion which serves at least to prove the antiquity of the

Jewish race as a people distinct from any alleged Egyptian or Canaanite origin, just as Josephus

set out to prove.

 Works Cited.

Bard, Kathryn A. An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Publishing, 2008.

Beall, Judith. Class Discussion, History 370: Judaism in the Ancient World, Fall 2015.

Beall, Judith. Course Reader, History 201: The Ancient World, Fall 2014.

Including:

Pitchard, James B., editor. “Expulsion of the Hyksos,” The Ancient Near East: An

Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Princeton, 1958. Pp. 173-175.

Beall, Judith. Course Reader, History 370: Judaism in the Ancient World, Fall 2015.

Including:

Lichtman, Rabbi Dovid. “Archaeology & the Bible.” Society Today, 2001.

www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Bible.

Berlin, Adele and Marc Zvi Brettler, editors. The Jewish Study Bible. Jewish Publication

Society Tanakh Translation.. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Bible Hub http://biblehub.com/timeline/

Bienkowski, Piotr and Alan Millard, editors. Dictionary of the Ancient Near East. University of

Pennsylvania Press, 2010.

Chabad.org http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8176/jewish/Chapter-12.htm

Chasidah, Yishai. Encyclopedia of Biblical Personalities. The Shaar Press, 1994.

Cory, I.P., editor. The Ancient Fragments Containing What Remains of the Writings of
Sanchoniatho, Berossus, Abydenus, Megasthenes, and Manetho. The Pergamum
Collection, Kindle Edition.

Gardner, Laurence. Genesis of the Grail Kings. Boston, MA: Element Books, Inc., 2000.

Gardner, Laurence. Genesis of the Grail Kings lecture transcript.

http://graal.co.uk/genesis_lecture_full.php

Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews, Vol. II. Translated by Henrietta Szould. Kindle

Edition, 2011.

Gruen, Erich S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkely:

University of California Press, 1998.

Lings, Martin. Muhammed: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources. Rochester, VT: Inner

Traditions, 2006.
Lumpkin, Joseph B., editor. The Lost Books of the Bible. Blountsville, AL: Fifth Estate

Publishers, 2009.

Margolis, Dana. Course Reader, Hebrew Studies 331: Prophets and Prophecy. Spring 2015.

Including:

Codex Judaica: A Chronological Index of Jewish History.

Margolis, Dana. Course Reader, Hebrew Studies 332: Women of the Bible. Spring 2015.

Including:

Chasidah, Yishai. Encyclopedia of Biblical Personalities. The Shaar Press, 1994.

Tuchman, Shera Aranoff and Sandra E. Rapoport. The Passions of the Matriarchs.

Jersey City, NJ: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 2004.

Osman, Ahmed. “Egypt Remembers: Ancient Accounts of the Great Exodus.” Ancient Origins,

5 November, 2014.

www.ancient-origins.net/history-important-events/egypt-remembers-ancient-accounts-

great-exodus-002295?page=0%2C1

Precourt, Bruce. Course Reader, Classics 390: Egyptian Mythology, Spring 2015.

Precourt, Bruce. Course Reader, Classics 274: Ancient Egyptian Civilization, Spring 2015.

Real History http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Sumer/Praise_poems2.htm

Ryholt, K.S.B. The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800

1550 BC. Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications, vol. 20. Copenhagen: Museum

Tusculanum Press, 1997.

Tuchman, Shera Aranoff and Sandra E. Rapoport. Moses’ Women. Jersey City, NJ: KTAV

Publishing House, Inc., 2008.

Whiston, William, translator. The New Complete Works of Josephus. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel

Publications, 1999.