The Hyksos, Kings of Egypt and the land of Edom

In Genesis 36:34 the Edomite king-list continues:-

"And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of Temani reigned in his stead."

We are not informed as to who was Husham's father, and, in the absence of contrary information, it seems reasonable to assume that he was the son of the preceding king, that is, of Jobab. We note that Husham was of the Land of Temani, which was the home of Eliphaz the Temanite, Job's chief friend. It would be no surprise for Job's son to make his home in the land of Teman, which was a part of Edom, when Eliphaz the chief friend of the family lived there. The link seems very natural, and serves as one more tie with connecting Job with the Edomites and with Edom's king Jobab.

We are told nothing further about King Husham, nor do we here glean any information concerning expansion of Edom during his reign. King Husham then passes from view.

The Reign of Hadad I
"And Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Avith." Gen. 36: 35

This king, whom we shall style Hadad I, was not the son of the former king, Husham, but was the son Bedad. Thus a new dynasty commences with Hadad I.

As the most significant event and exploit of this king's reign, it is recorded that he defeated Midian, doing so within the borders of Moab. The Midianites lived on the edge of the Arabian Desert on the eastern border of Moab. Quite a few important facts can be gathered from this record of war and victory.

First, it becomes apparent that Moab had, at some time prior to this, conquered and displaced the Emmims the first inhabitants of the land, as recorded in Deut. 2:9-11, 17. It seems all together probable that the three conquests there referred to, the conquest of the Horites by the Edomites, the conquest of the Emmims by the Moabites, and the conquest of the Zamzummims by the Ammonites, all occurred at about the same date; indeed, they could have been closely related events. This was an early Semitic conquest of the fringe lands around Canaan.

Second, we observe an Edomite army occupying and waging a victorious war on Moabite soi1. Since this took place on Moabite soil, either Moab was friendly and cooperative with Edom, or had or been conquered by or was dominated over by Edom. In either case, Edom emerges as the more powerful nation, emphasizing once more that Edom was coming more and more to the front.

Third, we see Midian defeated by Hadad I. Midian is therefore added to the territory controlled by Edom, in addition to the areas mentioned by us before under the previous kings.

Fourth, we get a hint of the northerly limit at that date, at least on the east side of Canaan.

Edom was exercising dominion over Moab and Midian. The ancient north border of Moab (before the rise of Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon,) was the River Jabbok, which empties into the Jordan River. (Num 21:24-26) This wou1d likely be the northern limit of Edom's Kingdom at that time.

If Edom under Hadad I still maintained sway over the Arabian Desert as it apparently did under Jobab, then already a large Arabian Desert Empire was actually in existence. The evidence all support the idea of the Empire as continuing under Hadad I and the succeeding kings, as we shall see later.

The capital city of this king Hadad I was Avith. The site of this city is as yet quite unknown. However, we cannot but wonder if the name Avith is not to be linked with a people known as "Avim" or "Avites" mentioned in Deut. 2:23. These people lived somewhere about the south-west border of Palestine. Their northern limit was at or near Azzah or Gaza. Some of the Avites ( = citizens of Avith?) were still there in Joshua's day (Josh. 13:3). In that very region Sir Flinders Petrie discovered a. number of Hyksos graves. If this suggestion should prove correct, then this king's capital lay outside of Edom proper.

The Reign of Samlah
"And Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his stead." Gen.36:36.

Hadad I was succeeded by Samlah, who was possibly Hadad's son. Aside from this brief reference we know nothing of this king's reign, nor do we know the location of his capital city Masrekah. He was followed by a king named Saul, possibly his son.

The Reign of Saul
"And Samlah died, and Saul of Rehoboth by the river reigned in his stead." Gen. 36:37.

It is startling indeed to read that King Saul's capital city was "Rehoboth by the river." This city is very far from Edom proper. It lay roughly 400 miles north easterly, near the banks of the great River Euphrates and for years as been identified with Rahabah, situated twenty-eight miles below the juncture of the Khabour River River with the Euphrates. The Euphrates is often called in Scripture just "the river" as reference through a concordance will amply prove.

As already said, it is truly startling to learn that a king of Edom should establish his capital 400 miles away from his own country! Clearly the Edomite kingdom had now spread out enormously north- eastwards to the Euphrates River, (perhaps doing so under Samlah's reign, brining Edom close to Assyria. (19) Possibly the business of further conquests in this direction, or beyond the river, made it advisable for King Saul (called Shaul in I. Chronicles 1:48,) to set up the seat of his government so far from Edom proper.

It is important to observe that these kings of Edom did not hesitate to establish their capitals away from their homeland, just as we know the Hyksos kings did when they invaded Egypt, for they established their capital then right in Egypt.

Extent of the Edomite Empire
Review now, for a moment, the widest extent of this Edomite Empire, as hinted at in Scripture and by tradition. The empire takes in a wide sweep of 500 miles across Northern Arabia, from Avim at the south-west corner of Palestine near Egypt to Orfah on the lower Euphrates River, and from Rahabah or Rehboth on the north side, then 600 miles southward to Teyma or Tema (south-east from Edom). (20) (Or perhaps as far south as Sheba in Southern Yemen. In effect, the Edomites may have controlled much of the Arabian Peninsula during this time. ed)

This very extensive area includes all the range of country inhabited by the Ishmaelites or Northern Arabians (Gen 25:18) described as "from Havilah" (Hal'il in Central Arabia) (21) unto "Shur, that is before Egypt" ( = the region of the Isthmus of Suez), "as thou goest toward Assyria" (which would be in the general direction of Rahabah or Rehoboth). From this it can be inferred that the Ishmaelites (North Arabians) were included in this great Edomite Empire, either by conquest or by voluntary co-operation; more likely by co-operation in view of Esau's family ties with Ishmael. It is possible that Hadad's defeat of the Midianites involved the Ishmaelites also, since the Midianites and Ishmalites often worked jointly (Gen 37:25-28, 36; 39:1; Judges 8:21-24)

That an empire of this size should exist upon the very border of Egypt, and the two not come into vital conflict seems impossible, human nature being what it is. Our theory is that the two did clash and that the Edomite semi-nomadic hordes (including Ishmaelites, Hittites, and Hivite bands, with the remnant of the Horites), catching Egypt in an unprepared condition, simply walking through Egypt's light defenses and pouring into Lower Egypt, the Nile Delta, so taking the country without any real battle at all.

Now what would the Egyptians call this mixed horde braking into and sweeping over the Delta Region? Obviously they would refer to them as:

"Arabian" They came from Northern Arabia (Ishmaelites)
"Asiatics" They had Hittite and Hebrew blood in them (Edomites) and quite likely Hittits from Canaan assisted.
"Barbarians" They were semi-nomadic
"Phoenecians" They were of mixed Canaanite and Hebrew stock
"Rulers of Countries" They already ruled over a number of other countries as we have seen. (22)

And that is exactly what the Egyptians called the Hyksos. Compare the above with our list in Chapter One, under No. 2 Race and Language of the Hyksos. What is there to hinder identifying the one with the other?

Identifying Kings by Name
The thought now arises as to the possibility of identifying the names of any Edomite kings with the names of Hyksos kings preserved to us through Egyptian records. This is a matter which linguists and historians may look into at some length, so no positive assertions will be ventured here; only a few tentative suggestions will be given. It could be, of course that the names of Hyksos kings in Egypt belong to a period after the close of the list of Edomite kings in Scripture, so that the two lists would nowhere overlap. However it does seem just feasible that the last three Edomite kings are the same as the first three Hyksos Kings and the parallel is very attractive.

Thus King Shaul of Edom could be Salatis, the first named Hyksos king. Josephus states that Salatis reigned thirteen years. King Saul, after completing his conquests around the Euphrates River, might have turned his attention next to Egypt; and basing his operations from the region of Avim in south-west Palestine pushed into the Delta. The names, Saul and Salatis are similar.

On the border of the Delta nearest this base, Salatis founded his capital city of Avaris (Biblical Tanis or Zoan). Is this name in any way related to the city of Avith, and to the Avim or Avies nearby in south-west Palestine?

The Reign of Baal-hanan
The Bible continues the Edomite record:
"And Saul died, and Baal-hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his stead." Gen.36:38.

The name Baal-hannan could conceivably be shortened to Beon the next Hyksos king. The Semitic name had to be written in Egyptian hieroglyphics and then over a millennium later was transliterated into Greek by an Egyptian Priest Manetho, and in that length of time a name could undergo a shortening process. It seems plausible, anyway, to put forth this suggestion, pending further investigation.

Josephus, quoting from Manetho, gives Beon a reign of 44 years.

The Reign of Hadad II
We come now to the last in the Biblical king-list for early Edom. This is Hadar in Genesis but Hadad in I. Chronicles.l:50.

"And Baal-hanan the son of Achbor died, and-Hadar reigned in his stead: the name of his city was Pau, and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter Mezahab." Gen. 36: 39.

As this king is named Hadad in the Chronicles account, we will style him Hadad II. His city of Pau (or Pai in Chronicles), has been thought to possibly be Phauara in Edom (23) but this is very uncertain. In view of our theory of identity of the Hyksos kings with the Edomites, and they were at this time establishing capitals outside of their homeland, we venture to suggest that this city should be looked for in the Nile Delta region rather than in Edom. For instance, Pau might be Pe, a suburb of Buto in Lower Egypt, a royal residence of early Egyptian kings, or some such place. (24)

The special naming of queen Mehetabel, wife of Hadad II, and the listing of her ancestry, indicate that she was a person of quite; unusual importance. Some have suggested that the names sound Egyptian in origin. However, we appear to have lost the information links which would make such a reference a source of real significance and enlightenment to us. We can but hope that some fortunate discovery will give us the clue some day.

The Importance of the Edomite King-List
It is quite obvious that the writer of the Book of Genesis was listing a line of kings which he considered to be of unusual importance to his readers. So important, indeed, as to draw him aside for a little from his main theme. He was giving his readers references to persons, cities and events which he knew they would readily recognize, understand and appreciate. Today, after three and a half millenniums have passed it is difficult for us to pick up the threads. If Edom was but a tiny, insignificant kinglet, as some scholars seem to want us to think, all this studied, compact listing and reference was both unnecessary and without point. On the other hand, if the writer was recording the origin of the great Hyksos Empire, which ruled over his own people, too, while they resided in Egypt, and on account of which his people were reduced to abject slavery, (as we shall see later on,) then we begin to grasp the vital importance of what this writer was recording, and the parts of the picture fall into place. We realize he was not wasting his own and his readers' time on trivialities to no purpose.

We firmly believe that the more the modern science of archaeology recovers ancient records from Egypt and other places in the Near East, the more we will come to value and appreciate such records as the writer of Genesis took time to condense and preserve for future generations.

The Hyksos King Apachnias
If our suggestion that the Edomite King Saul and Baal-hanan were the Hyksos kings Salatis and Beon, then Hadar or Hadad II should be Apachnias, the Hyksos king who succeeded Beon. Josephus, quoting from Manetho, states Apachnias reigned thirty six years and seven months.

It is difficult to see any similarity between the names Hadar and Apachnias, though it is known that names undergo great alterations with the passage of centuries, and may become so altered and corrupted as to be well nigh unrecognizable. For instance, the great King Ashurbanipal of Assyria, even amongst Semitic tongued people, in a few generations comes to be called "Asnapper" (Ezra 4:10). Fifteen hundred years elapsed from the dates of the Hyksos kings to the time of Manetho who copied the names in Greek, and so great distortion of names could occur.

There is also a possibility of the order of the names of the Hyksos kings having become confused, so that we cannot cling too tenaciously to the sequence of names which has come down to us second, or third hand or possibly much more remotely removed through Manetho and Josephus.

We definitely cannot be certain here, but just offer the suggestion that Apachnias may be the Biblical Hadad II, and leave it to further research.

Other Hyksos Kings
With the death of Kadad II the Scripture list of Edomite kings breaks off. Evidently the author of Genesis felt he had carried the list as far as was necessary. If our theory is correct, he did carry the list just that far, far enough to give the origin of and to connect with, the well known, first few Hyksos kings. The rest of the history of the Hyksos kings would already be sufficiently known to his readers, and was beyond the scope of the writer's subject in the book of Genesis; so he naturally closed his list. We can feel very thankful to Moses (who else was qualified to write Genesis? He was educated in Egypt, lived in Midian, and knew the early Hebrew records and traditions) for carrying the king-list as far as he did, just far enough as we believe to enable us to discover the link with the Hyksos kings.

After Apachnias, Josephus lists three more Hyksos Kings, as follows:

Apophia (I) reigned 61 years
Jonias (John or Khian) reigned 50 years, 1 month.
Aseis reigned 49 years, 2 months. (Josephus "Against Apion" 1:13)

Joniaa or Khian, is the one whose monuments have been found in such widely scattered points, as we mentioned in Chapter I, from Gebelen in Southern Egypt, to Crete, and across to Baghdad. Perhaps in his reign the Hyksos Empire attained its maximum dimensions.

Reviewing our points so far, we feel the evidence for the identity of Edomites and Hyksos kings very strong indeed. The Edomite Empire from Scripture indicates that it was stretching outward over an area which the Hyksos Empire also must have embraced, particularly in reaching Rehoboth (Rahabah) on the Euphrates River. The Hyksos Empire must have taken in Rahabah too, if it extended into Mesopotamia towards Baghdad. And the Biblical account pictures for us a growing kingdom or empire before the invasion of Egypt, a point absolutely essential to linking up with the Hyksos story, since the Egyptian sources and Josephus traditions have always seem to indicate this. Thus all the evidence so far fits together reasonably well.

End of Chapter Five