Exodus Israelites departing from Egypt will be replaced by the Hyksos invaders

“These earlier Asiatics are more likely to be Joseph’s relatives. The later Asiatics were very different and were not Egyptianized at all and appear to be of Hyksos descent”. Berean Insights We read this at: https://www.bereaninsights.org/nugget/the-discoveries-at-avaris/ The Discoveries at Avaris For more than two centuries archaeologists have sought evidence for the Israelites in Egypt. No Israelite settlement has ever been found in the 19th Dynasty where the Orthodox Chronology predicted it would be. I told you in the last Nugget about the Austrian team of archaeologists, led by Manfred Bietak, who have been excavating at Tel ed-Daba since 1960, more commonly called Avaris in ancient times. Bietak and his team have made many astounding discoveries. Manfred Bietak and his team have found evidence of a long period of Asiatic settlement in Avaris. Between Stratum G/1 and F there is a definite break between two distinct phases of settlement. Both Rohl and Bietak believe this line of demarcation between Stratum G/1 and F at Tel ed-Daba likely marks the break that resulted from the biblical Exodus of the Israelites from Tell ed-Daba. Around Goshen in the Second Intermediate Period there is incontrovertible evidence for a large Asiatic population. …. The majority of the tombs in the earlier strata are of Asiatic people from Palestine and Syria. Bietak says the early Asiatics were heavily Egyptianized. These people have spent considerable time in Egypt and have taken on many of the cultural practices of the Egyptians themselves. … these people have to be Israelites. The fit for the time period perfectly matches the other indications that this indeed is the correct time period for the Exodus. These earlier Asiatics are more likely to be Joseph’s relatives. The later Asiatics were very different and were not Egyptianized at all and appear to be of Hyksos descent. In the Brooklyn Papyrus there is a list of 95 names of slaves, over 50% of which are Semitic names. There are several Biblical names in the list, e.g. Menahem, Issachar, Asher and Shiphrah. The term Apiru (the equivalent of Hebrew) appears first in the Brooklyn Papyrus. William Albright recognized the language belongs to the northwest Semitic language family which includes Biblical Hebrew. There is a high proportion of female slaves. More adult women are buried here than men. 65% of all burials are children under the age of 18 months with girls out numbering boys by a ratio of 3:1. This could be explained by the massacre of Israelite boys whose bodies were then disposed of in mass unmarked burial pits. All over the city of Avaris are shallow burial pits with multiple victims. There were no careful interments as was required under Egyptian customs. The bodies were thrown one on top of another in mass graves. There is no evidence of grave goods being placed with the corpses as was the Egyptian custom. Bietak is convinced this is direct evidence of a plague or catastrophe. The large part of the remaining population abandoned their homes and left en masse. Bietak says the site was then reoccupied after an unknown interval of time by Asiatics who were not Egyptianised. Hence the break between stratum G/1 and F. There is a strange anomaly where the Asiatic folk who inhabited Stratum F lived in poor conditions yet their graves were richly endowed with precious metals and jewellery. The sources are unconnected and yet intriguingly consistent. Putting all the pieces together one can build up a consistent story which supports the Biblical account. The break in archeological stratum between G/1 and F marks the intervening years following the exodus of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt. The repopulation of Avaris sometime afterward by the Hyksos people who moved into Egypt matches the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period of the Egyptian Pharoahs. They were Asiatic people from the same region as the Israelites but not Egyptianized as Joseph and his family had been. The facts fit the period before the Exodus well. Given the disruption at the time of plagues and the magnitude of the deaths which occurred there would have been no time to bury the dead according to Egyptian customs. The predominance of females, especially among children would have been a result of the deliberate murder of the male children by the Pharoah. Where did such poor people (slaves no less) get such riches? Simple: read Ex 11:2 which says, “Tell all the Israelite men and women to ask their Egyptian neighbours for articles of silver and gold.”

Ramses II's alter egos

by Damien F. Mackey Petrie concludes that “Taharqa was as much ruler of Qedesh and Naharina as George II. was king of France, though officially so-called.” What to make of my proposed Third Intermediate Period (TIP) alter egos of pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’? First there is the long-reigning Psibkhenno (Psusennes), also called Ramses, and apparently a prolific builder. Yet, as we have read: “Nothing remains of the actual buildings of Psusennes I”. Then there is the disappearing Piankhi. We read: “No monument within Egypt bears his name. No building was constructed by him. No artifacts belonging to him have been recovered; no mention of his name occurs in secondary sources”. On this, see my article: Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt (5) Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt At least we know that Piankhi was Tirhakah, thereby taking some immense documentary, or evidential, pressure away from the former: “King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Tirhakah, Son of Ra, Piankhi”. Then there is Shabako (Shabaka), traditionally thought to have reigned for 50 years, but now squeezed by modern chronologists into about 15 years. We cannot include here, though, the similarly named Shebitku Khaemwaset, who was actually Ramses II’s son and co-regent, Khaemwaset. As we read: “The absence of the names of Shabako and Shebitku from the Assyrian and Hebrew records is no less remarkable than the scarcity of their monuments in the lands over which they extended their sway”. And again: “Considering the combined lengths of these two reigns, it is strange how seldom the names of Shabako [Shabaka] and Shebitku are encountered. Apart from the pyramids at Kurru where they were buried and from a horse-cemetery in the same place, their Nubian home has hardly a trace of them to show …”. Even the well-attested Tirhakah (Taharqa) is diminished in this quote from Petrie, who concluded that “Taharqa was as much ruler of Qedesh and Naharina as George II. was king of France, though officially so-called.” ….. Solutions All begins to make sense, however, when (i) the name Shabako is recognised as an abbreviation of Psibkh[enn]o, a Ramses, who is Ramses II ‘the Great’. When (ii) Piankhi, who is Tirhakah, is recognised as Ramses II ‘the Great’ owing to his name Usermaatra, and to his Ramesside-like aspirations. Ramses II was, of course, named Usermaatre-setepenre (‘The Justice of Re is Powerful’). Not surprisingly now, Piankhy - who I consider to be Tirhakah - has likenesses to Ramses II. He restored work supposedly begun by Ramses II at Gebel Barkal (Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, 1994, p. 339): “Piankhy … temple of Gebel Barkal – the latest stage of Egyptian building has been … dated to the reign of Ramesses II”. Piankhy supposedly restored it (ibid., p. 340). Piankhy also took the coronation name that Ramses II had taken (loc. cit.): This did not prevent Piankhy using the monuments that he built and decorated to emphasize his role as unifier of Egypt. His titles included the Horus name of Sematawy: ‘He who has unified the Two Lands’; as well as … ‘He who was crowned in Thebes’. He identified himself with … Ramesses II, and adopted … coronation [name], Usermaatra. …. And, finally, (iii) Shebitku Khaemwaset takes his place as Khaemwaset, the highly-talented son (and Vizier) of Ramses II ‘the Great’, sharing a co-regency with his father in the latter’s guise of Shabako. Thus, supposedly five kings (Psibkhenno; Piankhi; Shabako; Shebitku; Tirhakah) are reducible to a mere two: Ramses ‘the Great’ and his son, Khaemwaset. Tirhakah, a legend, a Ramses type “…. the inscription was branded by the noted Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge as an “example of the worthlessness, historically, of such lists”. …. Petrie concludes that “Taharqa was as much ruler of Qedesh and Naharina as George II. was king of France, though officially so-called.” ….. The Sabbath and Jubilee Cycle Whilst various revisionists, following Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, have looked to identify Ramses II with the relatively obscure Twenty-Sixth (Saïtic) Dynasty pharaoh, Necho (so-called II), none (as far as I am aware) seems to have suggested the ruler who, it is thought, so greatly sought to emulate Ramses II: namely, TIRHAKAH. Tirhakah was a conqueror on a Ramesside scale Further to my conclusion that the composite Piankhi/Tirhakah was also pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great, I find that the pharaoh’s (as Tirhakah) list of captured cities seems to be identical, in part, to those of Ramses II. This is invariably interpreted by scholars as Tirhakah seeking to emulate a much earlier Ramses II. We read in the article, “The Sabbath and Jubilee Cycle” (pp. 114-117): http://www.newbookinc.com/456-455BC%20AS%20SABATH%20YEAR-RETURN%20TO%20JUDEA.pdf … Egyptologists were amazed to find a long list of captured cities written on the base of a statue found at Karnak which belonged to a king named Tirhakah …. Each city represents the greater region under the control of this king. This record not only states that a king named Tirhakah controlled Ethiopia, Egypt, and northern Africa, but it claims that he had some sort of sovereignty over Tunip (Upper Syria, west of the Euphrates) … Qadesh (Lower Syria/ Palestine) … and the Shasu (region of Edom and the Trans-Jordan) … as far north as Arzawa (western Asia Minor) … Khatti (eastern Asia Minor) … and Naharin (western Mesopotamia) … and as far east as Assur (Assyria) …and Sinagar (Babylonia) …. In a footnote (p. 114, n.61), we read this comment: Mariette–Bey (KETA, pp. 66f), followed by Petrie (AHOE, 3, p. 297), and others, thought this list from Tirhakah was copied from an identical one found on a colossus which they believed belonged to Ramesses the Great (cf. KETA, Plate 385f). This colossus was identified with Ramesses II because his name was found inscribed upon it. The article continues: …. the inscription was branded by the noted Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge as an “example of the worthlessness, historically, of such lists”. …. Petrie concludes that “Taharqa was as much ruler of Qedesh and Naharina as George II. was king of France, though officially so-called.” ….. Despite the fact that these inscriptions are presently shunned, the ancient records actually confirm them. Severus (1.50), for example, notes that this “Tarraca, king of Ethiopia, invaded the kingdom of the Assyrians, Strabo speaks of a great king named “Tearko the Ethiopian” …. Tearko being the Greek form of the name Tirhakah. …. Tearko, he states, had led one of the great expeditions of the ancient world which were not “matters of off-hand knowledge to everybody”. …. Pharaoh Tirhakah’s conquests were akin to those of Ramses II ‘the Great’ because, so I believe, Tirhakah was Ramses II ‘the Great’.