The Exodus! Did it Really Happen?

[POI]

The Bible claims an Exodus took place. Many state it was not an actual event. Since the Bible makes a positive claim, in that an 'Exodus" took place, do we have positive evidence to support the claim?

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

2. If it should turn out that the Exodus did not take place, does this fact sway the Christian believer's position at all? Or, does it not matter one way or another?

[otseng]

1. The Autobiography of Ahmose, son of Ibana, a soldier under Ahmose I, records the destruction of Avaris and the expulsion of the Hyksos. (https://arce.org/resource/hyksos/).

You cannot just cherry pick a source. Here's what your source actually says:

The Autobiography of Ahmose, son of Ibana, a soldier under Ahmose and later kings, records a destruction of Avaris and expulsion of the Hyksos. But no solid evidence supports such destruction. Instead, archaeological material at Tell el Dab’a indicates a West Asian population continued to live there into the New Kingdom, raising questions about how many people were actually expelled.

https://arce.org/resource/hyksos/

2. Excavations at Tell Habuwa, possibly ancient Tjaru, have revealed evidence supporting the Hyksos expulsion by Ahmose I. (https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... he-hyksos/).

The battle at Tel Habuwa was before their attack on Avaris.

Archaeological discoveries at Tel Habuwa (also known as Tell el-Habua or Tell-Huba), a site associated with ancient Tjaru (Tharo), shed light on Ahmose’s campaign. A daybook entry in the famous Rhind Mathematical Papyrus notes that Ahmose seized control of Tjaru before laying siege the Hyksos at their capital in Avaris.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... he-hyksos/

So, yes, the Egyptians conquered Tel Habuwa, but they did not conquer Avaris.

3. Ahmose I's campaigns are said to have culminated in the siege of Avaris and the retreat of the Hyksos to Sharuhen in Palestine. Ahmose then pursued them, besieging Sharuhen for six years before finally driving them out (https://www.egypttoursportal.com/en-za/ ... s-invasion). This is more evidence that the Hyksos were not the expressed Israelites, as told from the Bible.

Sharuhen is located in Palestine, so your narrative is not consistent. We have one story saying the Hyksos were defeated in Avaris and then expelled and travelled to the land of Canaan. Now you're saying the Hyksos retreated to Sharuhen? This is more evidence of contradictory narratives.

To put this fringe position to bed, meaning, the fringe position that "the Hyksos are actually the expressed Israelites from the Bible", we instead have evidence and reasoning to conclude the Israelites are most likely not the Hyksos.

I'll let readers decide if cherry picking, making false claims, and having contradictory narratives is putting a position to bed.

[POI]

"What I am asking is if there is a conflict between an 1) Egyptian historical record and the 2) archaeological record, which is then right?".

If we go with option 1) as being the incorrect one, does this mean Josephus is wrong too, as he writes about a Hyksos expulsion?

Alternatively, if we discard them both, then we still have other logical evidence, as well as archeological evidence of a Hyksos expulsion anyways.

Evidence of this can be found throughout Egypt, including an “uninterrupted” production of Hyksos-style pottery in the Eastern Delta

I already responded here. The Hyksos brought new technologies, in which the native Egyptians then adopted for their use.

as well as a degree of continued worship of “Canaanite cults.”

Following the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, Canaanite cults continued to exist in Egypt due to a combination of factors:

1. Assimilation of Canaanite deities into the Egyptian pantheon: During the New Kingdom period (c. 1550–1069 BCE), Egypt had extensive interactions with Canaan, including military campaigns and trade. This led to the adoption of certain Canaanite deities into the Egyptian pantheon, such as Baal, Anat, and Astarte. These deities were often associated with powerful Egyptian gods, like Baal with Set. This assimilation facilitated the continued worship of these deities even after the Hyksos expulsion.

2. Presence of Canaanite communities in Egypt: Despite the expulsion of the Hyksos, Canaanite populations likely remained in Egypt, whether as traders, workers, or prisoners of war. These communities would have maintained their religious practices, contributing to the continued presence of Canaanite cults.

3. Syncretism and cultural exchange: The interaction between Egyptian and Canaanite cultures led to a degree of syncretism, where religious practices and beliefs influenced each other. This blending of traditions likely made it easier for Canaanite cults to persist in Egypt.

4. Acceptance of foreign deities within Egyptian polytheism: Ancient Egyptian religion was inherently polytheistic, which allowed for the incorporation of foreign deities without significantly altering the existing pantheon. This facilitated the acceptance and worship of Canaanite gods by both the state and individuals

As for evidence of the Exodus, I'm only just focusing on the Hyksos as my primary evidence of the Exodus, there are other pointers as well. So I can go to other evidence besides the Hyksos.

So far, you've provided none, as the Hyksos were likely not the described folks, as told from the Biblical account. What else do you think you've got?

Nobody is asking about the Lamanites, so it's another red herring. Unlike the Lamanites, both the Canaanites and Hyksos were real people mentioned by history books. And if the Canaanites depicted in the tomb of Rehkmire were not the Hyksos, then they've got to be somebody. Where did these Canaanites come from? Why are these Canaanites making bricks as slaves?

It's not a red herring. You completely missed my point. It's actually irrelevant as to whether or not the Lamanites were a real tribe. The point is that the Native Americans were not the Israelites, just like the Hyksos were not the Israelites. In this direct context, asking who the Hyksos actually were is really no different than asking who the Lamanites actually were. We have both logical and archeological evidence of the Hyksos expulsion. Which means the timeline from the Pentateuch, as well as some claims from the Pentateuch, do not align with the evidence of the Hyksos's actions. This renders the Pentateuch "fake news". Who cares who the Hyksos actually were, in direct relation to the Biblical account. They can, however, be checked off the list as a viable candidate, as being the described 'Israelites'. Do you maybe want to now take a crack at linking the Habiru tribe to the Biblical "Israelites" instead?

When I say evidence, I'm asking for links to sources, not just providing summaries from Google AI.

Riiight.... As I stated prior, if the AI generator does not comport with your needed narrative, then we must keep digging.

[POI]

You cannot just cherry pick a source. Here's what your source actually says:

You completely missed my point here. Since Ahmose I was not shy about the acts of enslavement and/or killing his enemies, why would he himself speak about instead expelling the Hyksos? Was he lying too? 

but they did not conquer Avaris.

Hmm?

Archaeological evidence at the site of Avaris (Tell el-Dab'a) supports the claim that Ahmose I conquered the city and expelled the Hyksos, who had ruled parts of Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period.

- Burned Buildings and Destruction Layers: Evidence of destruction, including layers of burned buildings, has been found. This indicates a violent event, likely the siege and conquest by Ahmose.

- Mass Graves and Scattered Weapons: Archaeological findings, such as mass graves and scattered weapons, suggest the intensity of the siege of Avaris by Ahmose.

- New Kingdom Grain Silos: Large New Kingdom grain silos suggest that after Ahmose took the city, Egyptian control was consolidated, and infrastructure was established to support Egyptian troops.

- Later Egyptian Forts: Following the conquest, Ahmose expanded the town and built several forts nearby to protect Egypt's eastern border. This indicates a shift in control and strategic priorities.

Continuity of Canaanite Culture: While Ahmose conquered Avaris and expelled the Hyksos as rulers, archaeological evidence also indicates that a West Asian population continued to live there into the New Kingdom. This suggests that not all residents were expelled, and some aspects of Canaanite culture persisted.

Account of Ahmose, son of Ebana: Tomb inscriptions of Ahmose, son of Ebana, a soldier who participated in the campaigns against the Hyksos, describe the attacks on Avaris and Sharuhen and the subsequent conquest of the city.

Archaeological evidence suggests a more nuanced scenario, where a portion of the population remained in Egypt, possibly integrated into Egyptian society.

These findings, combined with other evidence like the tomb inscriptions of Ahmose, son of Ebana, provide a strong archaeological basis for the historical narrative of Ahmose I's conquest of Avaris and the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt.

Sharuhen is located in Palestine, so your narrative is not consistent. We have one story saying the Hyksos were defeated in Avaris and then expelled and travelled to the land of Canaan. Now you're saying the Hyksos retreated to Sharuhen? This is more evidence of contradictory narratives.

Allow me to do you a solid and steelman your position. As you stated prior, there can be slivers of truth in any story, even including the Bible. The question remains... Were the Hyksos expelled or enslaved? Well, as stated in point #1, even Ahmose I does not take credit for enslaving them. I guess he was lying too.

[otseng]

"What I am asking is if there is a conflict between an 1) Egyptian historical record and the 2) archaeological record, which is then right?".

If we go with option 1) as being the incorrect one, does this mean Josephus is wrong too, as he writes about a Hyksos expulsion?

Josephus was reporting what Manetho wrote. So, yes, that part would be contrary to the archaeological records.

Alternatively, if we discard them both, then we still have other logical evidence, as well as archeological evidence of a Hyksos expulsion anyways.

I already pointed out two archaeological evidence they were not expelled:
* Excavations at Avaris
* Painting in the tomb of Rehkmire

What archaeological evidence exists that were expelled?

Evidence of this can be found throughout Egypt, including an “uninterrupted” production of Hyksos-style pottery in the Eastern Delta

I already responded here. The Hyksos brought new technologies, in which the native Egyptians then adopted for their use.

Makes no sense. The Egyptians attempted to expunge them from the records, claimed they were marauders, conquered them and expelled them. Yet the Egyptians said, "But, hey, we sure like their pottery, so we're going to keep on making them."

Following the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, Canaanite cults continued to exist in Egypt due to a combination of factors:

Makes no sense either. Egyptians, "We also like their deities, so we're going to incorporate them into our culture."

Rather, what would make more sense is if the Egyptians had viewed the Hyksos as a more powerful culture, rather than as an embarrassment to them. What would cause them to view them as more powerful? It fits with the Biblical account where the God of the Israelites was shown to be more powerful than Pharaoh and all their gods.

2. Presence of Canaanite communities in Egypt: Despite the expulsion of the Hyksos, Canaanite populations likely remained in Egypt, whether as traders, workers, or prisoners of war. These communities would have maintained their religious practices, contributing to the continued presence of Canaanite cults.

This is another contradictory narrative. The Hyksos were expelled and some also remained?

4. Acceptance of foreign deities within Egyptian polytheism: Ancient Egyptian religion was inherently polytheistic, which allowed for the incorporation of foreign deities without significantly altering the existing pantheon. This facilitated the acceptance and worship of Canaanite gods by both the state and individuals

Even more than this, the Egyptians had experimented with a form of monotheism after the Hyksos left.

The reign of King Akhenaten stands out in ancient Egyptian history for artistic innovation, the creation of a new religious capital and intrigue surrounding royal succession. Above all, though Akhenaten is known for his development of a kind of early monotheism that stressed the uniqueness of the sun god Aten, and of Akhenaten’s own relationship with this god. For this king, there was only one god and only one person who now knew the god: Akhenaten himself.

https://arce.org/resource/akhenaten-nef ... -gods-one/

As for evidence of the Exodus, I'm only just focusing on the Hyksos as my primary evidence of the Exodus, there are other pointers as well. So I can go to other evidence besides the Hyksos.

So far, you've provided none, as the Hyksos were likely not the described folks, as told from the Biblical account.

No, I've provided plenty of evidence and the sources for them. It's that you do not accept the evidence, not that I have not presented any evidence.

What else do you think you've got?

What's the point of presenting more evidence when you simply reject all evidence I've already produced?

Now, if you accept that I have presented evidence, then sure, I'll present my case in addition to the Hyksos.

We have both logical and archeological evidence of the Hyksos expulsion.

In terms of the logical arguments, I've already pointed out the many contradictions in that explanation. Plus, basic questions can't even be answered, like how were the Hyksos able to take over the best land.

As for the archaeological evidence, you have not produced any so far.

Who cares who the Hyksos actually were, in direct relation to the Biblical account. They can, however, be checked off the list as a viable candidate, as being the described 'Israelites'.

More evidence of hand-waving and automatic rejection of whatever is presented that supports the Bible.

Do you maybe want to now take a crack at linking the Habiru tribe to the Biblical "Israelites" instead?

We can discuss the Habiru after you've produced evidence from archaeology that the Hyksos were expelled.

When I say evidence, I'm asking for links to sources, not just providing summaries from Google AI.

Riiight.... As I stated prior, if the AI generator does not comport with your needed narrative, then we must keep digging.

This then confirms you only produce AI summary statements and do not provide references to the actual sources. And as I've pointed out at least twice, AI summaries can produce wrong information.

Since Ahmose I was not shy about the acts of enslavement and/or killing his enemies, why would he himself speak about instead expelling the Hyksos? Was he lying too? 

What records do we have from Ahmose I? As far as I know, the only written records we have of the Hyksos are from Manetho by way of Josephus.

Archaeological evidence at the site of Avaris (Tell el-Dab'a) supports the claim that Ahmose I conquered the city and expelled the Hyksos, who had ruled parts of Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period.

What is the source? As I've demonstrated, AI summaries can be wrong. And I've provided my source with a reference which says they were not expelled.

As you stated prior, there can be slivers of truth in any story, even including the Bible. The question remains... Were the Hyksos expelled or enslaved? Well, as stated in point #1, even Ahmose I does not take credit for enslaving them. I guess he was lying too.

We don't know what Ahmose I claims.

Were the Hyksos expelled or enslaved? Since I've been the only one producing evidence (and not just AI claims), then the evidence supports my position.

[POI]

We don't know what Ahmose I claims.

https://www.sjsu.edu/people/d.mesher/hu ... eading.pdf

The story of the Hyksos' expulsion is narrated by Egyptians, notably in the tomb inscription of Ahmose, son of Ebana, a soldier who served in the Egyptian army during that time. This inscription provides a firsthand account of the siege and conquest of Avaris (the Hyksos capital) and the subsequent expulsion of the Hyksos rulers.

Since enslavement and/or dispatching his enemies was the preferred method, after conquering his enemies, then why does a direct member of his cabinet instead describe an expulsion of the Hyksos?

I already pointed out two archaeological evidence they were not expelled:
* Excavations at Avaris
* Painting in the tomb of Rehkmire

And I already responded to these.

* post 800
* post 806

And so on, and so forth.........

What archaeological evidence exists that were expelled?

Already provided... Here it is again (https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... he-hyksos/):

"Excavations at Tel Habuwa, thought to be ancient Tjaru, reveal evidence of the expulsion of the Hyksos by Ahmose I at the end of the Second Intermediate Period"

"Excavations at the site, located two miles east of the Suez Canal, have uncovered evidence of battle wounds on skeletons discovered in two-story administrative structures dating to the Hyksos and New Kingdom occupations. The site showed evidence of burned buildings, as well as massive New Kingdom grain silos that would have been able to feed a large number of Egyptian troops. After Ahmose took the city and defeated the Hyksos, he expanded the town and built several nearby forts to protect Egypt’s eastern border. Tjaru was first discovered in 2003, but until now, the excavation only uncovered the New Kingdom military fort and silos. This new discovery confirms a decisive moment in the expulsion of the Hyksos previously known from textual sources."

Makes no sense. The Egyptians attempted to expunge them from the records, claimed they were marauders, conquered them and expelled them. Yet the Egyptians said, "But, hey, we sure like their pottery, so we're going to keep on making them."

1. While the Egyptians did make attempts to minimize or even erase the memory of their foreign rulers after the Hyksos were expelled, it's important to remember that such attempts were not always completely successful or all-encompassing. Destroying or suppressing official records and monumental inscriptions was one thing but completely eliminating the impact of the Hyksos on daily life, including craft production, was much harder.

2. The Hyksos period wasn't just an isolated intrusion; it was a time of significant cultural exchange and interaction. This resulted in the introduction of new technologies, techniques, and even artistic styles that the Egyptians may have found useful or appealing, even after the Hyksos were no longer in power. These innovations may have become integrated into Egyptian practices and continued to be used because they were effective or aesthetically pleasing, not necessarily as a tribute to the Hyksos.

3. Pottery production often involves the transmission of skills and knowledge through generations of artisans. Even if the ruling elite wanted to erase the memory of the Hyksos, the potters and craftsmen who had learned to make Hyksos-style pottery may have continued to do so because they were skilled in those techniques or because there was still a demand for those types of goods.

4. Pottery styles could be influenced by various factors, including availability of materials, ease of production, and market demand. If Hyksos-style pottery was durable, practical, or popular, it may have continued to be produced simply out of practicality, regardless of its origins.

5. Archaeological evidence suggests that despite official attempts to suppress the Hyksos, some cultural practices, including the production of "Hyksos" forms of pottery and scarabs, continued in certain areas like the Eastern Delta, where many foreign artisans may have remained.

In summary, while the Egyptians may have tried to erase the Hyksos from the official narrative, their cultural and technical influences, including in areas like pottery, persisted due to a combination of factors:

* It's difficult to fully erase a period of foreign rule and its impacts on society.
* Useful or appealing Hyksos innovations may have been adopted and continued.
* Skills and knowledge were passed down through generations of artisans.
* Functional or popular pottery styles may have continued production regardless of origin.
* Some Hyksos may have remained in Egypt and continued their cultural practices.

No, I've provided plenty of evidence and the sources for them. It's that you do not accept the evidence, not that I have not presented any evidence.

What counts as "evidence"? In the direct name of the Bible, I've debated flat-earthers, young-earthers, global-flooders, Genesis literalists, etc.... They all provide 'evidence'. And now, I can add "the Hyksos are the Israelites" to the growing list of interlocutors who claim I hand waive evidence.

What's the point of presenting more evidence when you simply reject all evidence I've already produced?

See my response directly above. It is as likely that the Biblical account of "the Exodus" is fake news, just like the other topics directly above are also likely fake news. But sure, what else do you believe you've got?

Now, if you accept that I have presented evidence, then sure, I'll present my case in addition to the Hyksos.

Again, this is evidence of another tribe. Not the tribe the Bible describes. Hence, there is, so far, no evidence for the claim(s) of the Bible here.

More evidence of hand-waving and automatic rejection of whatever is presented that supports the Bible.

Since I elaborated, now we know you are just ignoring my direct point. Since we know the Israelites were neither the Hyksos nor the Lamanites, in this context, it matters not who the Hyksos and the Lamanites really were. The point here is that we can rule out both the Hyksos and the Lamanites as being the said Israelites in question.

It's similar to performing an investigation. Once so-and-so (or) a group is ruled out as being linked to an action, they are ruled out. We know the Hyksos were expelled, rather than enslaved. Hence, we can no longer attribute these folks to a Biblical narrative. Again, if you want to link another group, maybe try the Habiru. Asking who these ruled-out suspects really were, after the fact, is another topic completely unrelated to this one.

This then confirms you only produce AI summary statements and do not provide references to the actual sources. And as I've pointed out at least twice, AI summaries can produce wrong information.

I've provided sources too. And of course you can argue against them too, so it really does not matter. Of course AI is 'wrong' here. Why? When the answer does not comport with your necessary narrative, keep digging until you get the one you want. I've explained, ad nauseum. We now have more technology. Why not use it? Yet again, the reason you have to take so long in coming up with your position, is because evidence points to the contrary. Which means you must keep digging. Just like with the aforementioned flat-earthers, young-earthers, etc...

In conclusion, all other believers here have instead opted to go with Carl Sagan's slogan.

[otseng]

We don't know what Ahmose I claims.

https://www.sjsu.edu/people/d.mesher/hu ... eading.pdf

Since enslavement and/or dispatching his enemies was the preferred method, after conquering his enemies, then why does a direct member of his cabinet instead describe an expulsion of the Hyksos?

I don't find anything there of what Ahmose I claims.

And I don't find anything about any expulsion of the Hyksos, except for the paragraph titles that were added by the translator. The only thing close I see is "Then Avaris was despoiled, and I brought spoil from there: one man, three women; total, four persons. His majesty gave them to me as slaves." But instead of anything close to expulsion, the Hyksos were taken as slaves by the soldier.

I already pointed out two archaeological evidence they were not expelled:
* Excavations at Avaris
* Painting in the tomb of Rehkmire

And I already responded to these.

* post 800
* post 806

I see no links to any archaeological evidence in post 800 or in post 806, rather they are just repeating the claim.

What archaeological evidence exists that were expelled?

Already provided... Here it is again (https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... he-hyksos/):

"Excavations at Tel Habuwa, thought to be ancient Tjaru, reveal evidence of the expulsion of the Hyksos by Ahmose I at the end of the Second Intermediate Period"

"Excavations at the site, located two miles east of the Suez Canal, have uncovered evidence of battle wounds on skeletons discovered in two-story administrative structures dating to the Hyksos and New Kingdom occupations. The site showed evidence of burned buildings, as well as massive New Kingdom grain silos that would have been able to feed a large number of Egyptian troops. After Ahmose took the city and defeated the Hyksos, he expanded the town and built several nearby forts to protect Egypt’s eastern border. Tjaru was first discovered in 2003, but until now, the excavation only uncovered the New Kingdom military fort and silos. This new discovery confirms a decisive moment in the expulsion of the Hyksos previously known from textual sources."

This says nothing about expulsion of the Hyksos, but the defeat of Tjaru. The sequence also doesn't make sense. Tjaru was attacked before Avaris. "A daybook entry in the famous Rhind Mathematical Papyrus notes that Ahmose seized control of Tjaru before laying siege the Hyksos at their capital in Avaris." But Tjaru would've been between Avaris and Canaan. If they were expelled out of Egypt, one would think cities would be attacked towards the direction of Canaan.

As for expulsion, it only mentions Manetho as a source. It is relying on Manetho's account for the expulsion, not on archaeological evidence.

The Hyksos are well known from ancient texts, and their expulsion was recorded in later ancient Egyptian historical narratives. The third-century B.C.E. Egyptian historian Manetho–whose semi-accurate histories stand out as valuable resources for cataloging Egyptian kingship–wrote of the Hyksos’ violent entry into Egypt from the north, and the founding of their monumental capital at Avaris, a city associated with the famous excavations at Tell ed-Dab’a.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... he-hyksos/

Some Hyksos may have remained in Egypt and continued their cultural practices.

This is the most likely.

What counts as "evidence"?

See Presenting evidence.

I've provided sources too.

They are very scant. And the ones that you have don't back up your claims as I've shown in this post.

[POI]

[Replying to otseng in post #816]

Below are three ancient Egyptian inscriptions which mention the expulsion of the Hyksos. If the Egyptians were not shy about expressing the enslavement of their defeated enemies, like they did with the Nubians, then why instead boast about expelling the Hyksos?

1. The Tomb Inscription of Ahmose, Son of Ebana: This inscription, found in the tomb of a soldier who served under Ahmose I, details the siege and conquest of Avaris, the Hyksos capital, and the expulsion of the last Hyksos ruler. This is considered a key Egyptian historical account of the event.

2. Kamose Victory Stelae: Kamose, Ahmose I's predecessor, erected two stelae in the Karnak Temple. These stelae boast of campaigns against the Hyksos and the battles fought, including a dramatic attack on Avaris. They provide insights into the early stages of the Hyksos expulsion campaign.

3. Speos Artemidos Inscription of Hatshepsut: Written later, this inscription by Queen Hatshepsut may refer to the banishment of a group of Asiatics from Avaris. This potentially echoes the earlier expulsion of the Hyksos, though its precise interpretation is debated.

Also, one under Ahmose's leadership also records their actions: (https://store.carta-jerusalem.com/carta ... 0-bce.html)

*****************************

The Hyksos are likely not the "Israelites". This is why, after 2 years, no one else is making this argument. You are the Loan Ranger. They instead chose to only bring forth the other argument, in that "absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence."

[otseng]

1. The Tomb Inscription of Ahmose, Son of Ebana: This inscription, found in the tomb of a soldier who served under Ahmose I, details the siege and conquest of Avaris, the Hyksos capital, and the expulsion of the last Hyksos ruler. This is considered a key Egyptian historical account of the event.

You're just repeating the claim and I already addressed this.

In the soldier's testimony, what it says is "Then Avaris was despoiled, and I brought spoil from there: one man, three women; total, four persons. His majesty gave them to me as slaves." The only mention of an expulsion is what the translator added in the paragraph title.

Instead of this being evidence for expulsion, it's actually evidence of the Hyksos being enslaved. It was common practice for soldiers to acquire slaves as spoils of battles. Would it make any sense for only this soldier to get slaves and all the other Hyksos to be expelled? No.

2. Kamose Victory Stelae: Kamose, Ahmose I's predecessor, erected two stelae in the Karnak Temple. These stelae boast of campaigns against the Hyksos and the battles fought, including a dramatic attack on Avaris. They provide insights into the early stages of the Hyksos expulsion campaign.

Kamose was Senebkay's son. I already pointed out his father's battle with the Hyksos was a huge embarrassment. Kamose tried a campaign to paint the Egyptians as victorious, but it's just propaganda.

Kamose's records on the Carnarvon Tablet (in the text also parallelled in the Thebes stelae of Kamose) relate the misgivings of this king's council to the prospect of a war against the Hyksos:

See, all are loyal as far as Cusae. We are tranquil in our part of Egypt. Elephantine [at the First Cataract] is strong, and the middle part (of the land) is with us as far as Cusae. Men till for us the finest of their lands. Our cattle pasture in the Papyrus marshes. Corn is sent for our swine. Our cattle are not taken away... He holds the land of the Asiatics; we hold Egypt..."[11]

However, Kamose's presentation here may be propaganda designed to embellish his reputation since his predecessor, Seqenenre Tao, had already been engaged in conflict with the Hyksos (for unknown reasons), only to fall in battle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamose

3. Speos Artemidos Inscription of Hatshepsut: Written later, this inscription by Queen Hatshepsut may refer to the banishment of a group of Asiatics from Avaris. This potentially echoes the earlier expulsion of the Hyksos, though its precise interpretation is debated.

Yes, the inscription refers to Asiatics from Avaris:

So listen, all you elite and multitude of commoners: I have done this by the plan of my mind. (36) I do not sleep forgetting, (but) have made form what was ruined. For I have raised up what was dismembered beginning (37) from the time when the Asiatics were in the midst of the Delta, (in) Avaris, with vagrants in their midst, (38) toppling what had been made. They ruled without the Sun, and he did not act by god's decree down to my (own) uraeus-incarnation. (Now) I am set (39) on the Sun's thrones, having been foretold from ages of years as one born to take possession. I am come as Horus, the sole (40) uraeus spitting fire at my enemies. I have banished the gods' abomination, the earth removing their footprints.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070403234 ... midos.html

It does not mention anything about their expulsion.

Also, one under Ahmose's leadership also records their actions: (https://store.carta-jerusalem.com/carta ... 0-bce.html)

This is just repeating your first claim above:

The siege and conquest of Avaris and the expulsion of the last Hyksos ruler of the XVth Dynasty is
recorded in the tomb inscription of one professional soldier whose career spanned the reigns of the first three kings of Dynasty XVIII

https://store.carta-jerusalem.com/carta ... 0-bce.html

The Hyksos are likely not the "Israelites". This is why, after 2 years, no one else is making this argument. You are the Loan Ranger.

In practically all my debates here for over 20 years, I've been a lone ranger when debating with others, so there's nothing unusual here.

I don't see anyone else arguing recently for your side. Anybody else want to help your side out?

[POI]

[Replying to otseng in post #818]

https://arce.org/resource/hyksos/#:~:te ... estruction.

"Records of Kamose cease after his third regnal year, and his brother (or son) Ahmose took up the campaign. The Autobiography of Ahmose, son of Ibana, a soldier under Ahmose and later kings, records a destruction of Avaris and expulsion of the Hyksos.."

I agree with you about one thing.... Common Egyptian practices were to either enslave or dispatch their defeated enemies. And yes, Ahmose I was not trying to hide such enslavement or annihilation practices. Why then does scholarship instead reach the conclusion of an Ahmose I lead Hyksos expulsion, rather than an Ahmose I lead Hyksos enslavement and/or annihilation? I've already explained why they were likely expelled.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #818]

https://arce.org/resource/hyksos/#:~:te ... estruction.

"Records of Kamose cease after his third regnal year, and his brother (or son) Ahmose took up the campaign. The Autobiography of Ahmose, son of Ibana, a soldier under Ahmose and later kings, records a destruction of Avaris and expulsion of the Hyksos.."

We just looked at the actual source and it says the opposite:

In the soldier's testimony, what it says is "Then Avaris was despoiled, and I brought spoil from there: one man, three women; total, four persons. His majesty gave them to me as slaves." The only mention of an expulsion is what the translator added in the paragraph title.

Instead of this being evidence for expulsion, it's actually evidence of the Hyksos being enslaved. It was common practice for soldiers to acquire slaves as spoils of battles. Would it make any sense for only this soldier to get slaves and all the other Hyksos to be expelled? No.

This is yet another example of where AI gets it wrong. AI is not able to recognize the mention of expulsion in the document was not written by the soldier, but by a translator.

Why then does scholarship instead reach the conclusion of an Ahmose I lead Hyksos expulsion, rather than an Ahmose I lead Hyksos enslavement and/or annihilation? I've already explained why they were likely expelled.

The only source presented of the Hyksos being expelled is from Manetho. And we have evidence that Manetho's account of the reason for the movement of the Hyksos are unreliable.

I've presented two archaeological evidence they were not expelled. Now, we have additional textual evidence from Ahmose, son of Ebana, they were enslaved. So, evidence is stacked towards them not being expelled.