> Good try sport, you only missed it by a few centuries and an entire dynasty. It was Ahmose I that overthrew the Hyksos. His dynasty, with pharaohs like Thutmose I and Hatshepsut and Tutankhamun, came before the Ramesside. I do appreciate your wishful thinking about your bible myths though.

Yes, I meant the 18th dynasty. Whatever. The point remains. Everybody knows that the Pharaoh of Exodus 1 is a composite figure and not just 1 guy. Well, maybe you don't.

> I am afraid the archeology doesn't support that. The archeology of the Hyksos areas in Egypt shows that they were similar to Canaanites, and Canaanites in the Levant worshiped Yahweh and El among their gods, and Hebrew is a Canaanite language. The consensus among scholars is that Hebrews are a branch of Canaanites, and the Hebrew religion is an offshoot of Canaanite religion. I am sure it is painful to learn this for people who are emotionally invested, but that has no bearing on the evidence.

More debunked 1960s nonsense from people who can't even read the text and more imaginary sources. Israelite sites are clearly distinguishable from Canaanite sites in the stratigraphy. This comes from the idiots who can't read Joshua properly and think the Israelites are said to have destroyed and rebuilt all of their settlements.

Joel Hoffman points out that Yahweh isn't attested anywhere other than in Israelite sources. The claim that he was worshiped by Canaanites is absolute fantasy. And you have the audacity to accuse me of "misrepresenting the evidence". You're literally just making shit up.

> What other languages are you talking about here? Aramaic? Greek? Arabic? I didn't consider it before because it's something that doesn't mean anything without context, which you have not provided.

The other Bronze age Levantine languages like Akkadian and Moabite. All of them have Egyptian loanwords and, but none have as much as are used in the Pentateuch. Later Hebrew writings don't even have that much.

> There can be a debate about the meaning of Empire, but in general it is a position above king, a king of kings, as the Persians would say. The first pharaoh was Narmer, who united the Upper and Lower Kingdoms of Egypt. Over the millennium the land of Egypt would fragment into smaller kingdoms and then be united again. Various pharaohs would extract tribute from and station troops in the Nubia and the Levant and Libya. If you don't understand that to be an Empire, then fine, pick a different word, but Egypt still had a massive presence in what later became, for very short periods of time, an independent Israel.

The point is that Egypt never ruled over it directly like you implied. No, they didn't have a "massive presence." They had influence, and even that was waning by the 19th dynasty.

> I could go on but there is a lot of reading you need to do before you can catch up. Good luck buddy. Maybe don't get your information from "Biblical Archeology", because those folks start out with the answers and try to find evidence they can force to support.

This entire field is "Biblical Archeology", idiot, since the OT is one of the largest written sources we have for the this region at this time.

But just keep sticking to your 20th century nonsense. Whatever makes you feel better.

We're done here.