The Hyksos, Kings of Egypt and the land of Edom

FOREWORD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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