Isauricus Rex
In Response To: Yes, you are right ()

So, what was the religion of that original confederacy of tribes that forced their way into Canaan at the beginning of the Hyksos Period? I do accept that the conquest of Canaan by Salitis/Joshua was a real event, even if the details are questionable and conflated with myth. The tribes led out of Egypt at this time would have been for all practical purposes Egyptian in culture and religion. The adults were however killed off in the wilderness, which allowed the youths to be reprogrammed to a considerable extent. After resettlement, they certainly would have been "tempted" to adopt the deities of their new locale, especially Asherah (Yzebel/Isis), Baal (Seth) and El. The name Is-ra-el, as has been suggested, substitutes Ra for Baal, but preserves Is(is) and El.

Many or most of the people in Israel and Judah were later resettled throughout the larger empire. So, what would have been the point for someone as late as Herod to designate his leading princes as the "Reuben", "Simeon", "Levi", "Judah", "Issachar", and "Zebulun"? Were they really expected to become princes over tribes, even as the sons of Amenhotep II in the New Kingdom? Such tribes no longer existed in Herodian days in Israel proper, but may have lived on elsewhere in very different forms.

And no doubt there were diverse tribes established at various times by great kings and were named by them for a particular patron god (Osiris/Issachar, Geb-Seb/Reuben, Atum/Dan, etc.). It is plausible that many such tribes never set foot either in Egypt or Israel.

The original racial/ethnic integrity of all tribes eventually fragmented, but names have a way of going on and are adopted by (or applied to) other groups brought in to replace former ones depleted by war, genocide, disease, etc. This process was taking place over many hundreds of years and got very messy to say the least. It may be beyond even exhaustive DNA studies to sort it all out.

From Eternal Egypt by Pierre Montet (p 127), "During the New Kingdom, the Timihu and the Tehenu were outnumbered by newcomers, the Libu, who gave their name to Libya, and the Meshwesh, whose physical characteristics and attire are depicted on the painted bas-reliefs in the temple of Medinet Habu, and on the glazed composition plaquettes in the palace adjoining the temple. Like the early Tehenu they had aquiline noses and pointed beards ... The Timihu were quick to adopt the attire of the Libyans, as well, as the practice of tattooing the body."

What Egyptologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, historians, etc., in general have not recognized is that groups such as the Libu and Meshwesh did not generally migrate of their own accord but were moved around at the discretion of the royal family. Also, they often were exploited in succession battles between rival royals, which could lead to their complete annihilation.

Getting back to the family of Herod, they were extremely ambitious. We know that they acquired vast estates in Gaul (France) and probably also in Germany and Britain. Herodians also ruled in Armenia. We are now trying to determine the extent of their ties and influence in Parthia and Egypt. Certainly, they wanted to leverage their favor with Rome to increase whatever claims they already had there due to blood line.

Here's some provacative questions:

Is the name Scyth related to Ichthys (fish)?

Is the name Issachar likewise transposed into the Roman name Isauricus? See,

Is the Egyptian Korast the same as Hebrew Koresh (as applied to the Persian king Cyrus)?

Is there a link between Parth(ian) and the Hebrew Berith, a Shechemite (Osiride) deity and type of fire sacrifice? (See Chapter 10, Note 7 of my on-line book)

Responses To This Message

Re: Gaulish or Galliac?, or?