Avim in Hatzerim

“But the Avim, who dwell in open cities, up till Hatzerim -- the Caphtorites, who came forth of Caphtor, exterminated them, and dwelt in their stead.” Deuteronomy 2:23

We must open with their reference in Deuteronomy “But the Avim, who dwell in open cities, up till Hatzerim -- the Caphtorites, who came forth of Caphtor, exterminated them, and dwelt in their stead.”¹ Already this group has a curveball with the mention of the Caphtorites thrown into the mix. These people are actually children of Mizraim, and one of the more mysterious members of the entire Table. To summarize a much longer discussion from the Book of Ham, the Caphtorim were somehow related to Greece, and/or the Minoans of Crete.²

David Rohl theorizes that the Greater Hyksos of the Fifteenth Dynasty - here potentially represented by the Anakim - were replaced by the Lesser Hyksos of the Sixteenth Dynasty, which would have been the Avim.³ Potential evidence for this can be drawn from Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao, who began the deposition of the Hyksos with his consort-wife Ahhotep I, who herself was likely of Canaanite descent. Multiple connections can be drawn, but important is the glyph ‘Ah’ in her name being identical to the Canaanite/Pelasgian moon goddess Io, or Yah in Hebrew. This connection is critical, and will be pulled on in the section on the Caphtorim, but to summarize; the Caphtorim of Crete likely have a “Pelasgian” ethnic stock, moving into Egypt under the title “Peleset” - one of the sea peoples - and settling in Philistia.

Further connections to Greece and the Aegean can be drawn from the Book of Japheth, from the discussion on Javan, where the region was known to ancient Egyptians as “Yawan/Iaones”, written in Linear B tablets as Ia-wo-ne, weaving its way into Greek as “Ionia”. This is more than mere etymology, and Queen Ahhotep actually used the title hnwt idbw h3w-nbwt 'Mistress of the Shores beyond the Islands' hinting at an Aegean connection. Her son, Kamose, who finishes off the expulsion of the Hyksos, marries another Ahhotep II who on her tomb even has Minoan imagery, potentially also indicating this Caphtorim origin for the dynasty.

All of this places these groups in a tricky position, as potentially the only groups listed multiple times across multiple genealogies! Whether placed in the genealogy of Japheth as “Javan”, alongside other Mizraim groups of Ham as the Caphtorim, or listed among the giants as Avim these roving bands of warriors appear to have connections all over the coastal near east. It’s very probable this group had a connection to the Canaanite Hyksos group known as the “Aamu” who migrated into Egypt in a similar fashion to Avraham, showing further connections to the Amorites previously discussed.

Whatever their connection, the Avim, and other Canaanite groups such as the Aamu, as well as other assimilated Aegean groups such as the Peleset would have composed the stock of the various Philistine cities in relative proportions. Images from Egyptian reliefs clearly show an almost stereotypical visual for a modern reader's assumptions. To put it bluntly, they almost look like a much more common version of how we envision Abraham and his sons to look, with dense beards, tied off longer hair, quite strong nasal sections, olivine skin, and importantly wearing some kind of pants with colorful tassels attached mirroring the Jewish practice of blue tassel fringes. These are very obviously Canaanites, if not directly related to other Semites, Amorites, and Avraham himself.

The actual term “avim” could be translated to something like “dense clouds” or alluding to a “thick covering” of some sort. This usage of ‘avim’ actually comes from psalms where the term is placed next to “Shamayim” alluding to the sky, clouds, and rain. “Who covers the shamayim (heavens) with avim (clouds), Who prepares rain for the earth.”⁴ Another etymology alludes to a thicket “Just as these were with thickets [avim], as it is written: “They go into thickets [be’avim]…and into the rocks” (Jeremiah 4:29), these, too, were with avim, “how the Lord has clouded [ya’iv]…in His wrath.”⁵ The pattern of these definitions is one of yet another group misleading the world to idolatry like the previous giants, or men of stature responsible for leading the common folk.

From Talmud Chullin we get some of the best information regarding the etymology and origin of the Avim “The opinion of Rav, as Rav says: The Avvim were not Philistines; rather, they came from Teiman. This is also taught in a baraita: The Avvim came from Teiman. And why were they called Avvim and not Teimanim? Because they corrupted [ivvetu] and destroyed their place of origin when they left. Alternatively, they were called Avvim since they desired [ivvu] many deities. Alternatively, they were called Avvim since they were so fearsome that all who saw them were seized by convulsions [avit]. Rav Yosef said: And each one of them has sixteen rows of teeth.”⁶ Here we see again they misled people to “desire” many deities, as well as “corrupted” their place of origin begetting the name shift. The Talmud appears to view them as coming from “Teiman”, but it’s unclear if they mean the district in Edom - which would make sense with all the other references - or actually from Yemen.

In a lengthy discussion from the Talmud of various forms of idol worship we are told exactly who the Avim worshiped, confirming their idolatrous nature “And the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak” (II Kings 17:31); and what are they? The image of a dog and a donkey.”⁷ Genesis Rabbah also confirms this saying “Avim – as they brought annihilation upon the world and were themselves annihilated from the world, as they caused the world to be annihilated, just as it says: “A ruin, a ruin, a ruin [ava] I will render it” (Ezekiel 21:32). Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon said: Because they were as expert in soil as snakes, as in the Galilee they call snakes avya.”⁸

Attentive readers will immediately notice ‘snakes’ and begin harkening back to the Horites and Hivites whomst also share snake imagery within their group name.The proximity of the Avim in their territory does help identify them fairly near the Horites, so this all makes quite a bit of sense, from Joshua we learn they live in close proximity to Philistines and are even a sixth additional ‘lord’ in the south “five Philistine overlords: the Gazite and the Ashdodite, the Ashkelonite, the Gittite, the Ekronite, and the Avvites, in the south”⁹ This southern region is not unlike Kadesh where the Amalekites were living, and again borders the Land of Seir where the Horites are said to live.

The Talmud even notes the kasha (difficulty): “The verse is difficult, since it first said there are five lords of the Philistines, but it then lists six. Rabbi Yonatan said: There were in fact six lords, but the greatest of them were only five. Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Taḥlifa bar Avina: Write this statement about the greatest [arunekei] in your book of aggada, and explain that word. The Gemara notes: And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rav, as Rav says: The Avvim were not Philistines; rather, they came from Teiman.”¹⁰ Let’s break this down.

The suggestion here is that “Avim in the South” is “Teiman”, which is the word for Yemen. The problem with this is that there is the previously mentioned district Teiman in Edom, and more importantly the son of Esau named “Teman”, but also the relativity of the term “south” in the context of Philistia. This could very well mean the Sinai, or North West Arabia, which is precisely the territory corresponding to many of the other groups such as the Horites, and Amalekites. However, there are alternative views about the Talmud’s suggestion here, incorporating them in some way with the Philistines.

Rashi expands on this connection, disagreeing with Rav’s identification with Teiman in his commentary “The Avim are part of the Philistine people, for they are enumerated together with them in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 13:3, above). But because of the oath which Abraham had sworn to Abimelech, king of the Philistines (Genesis 21:24), Israel would have been unable to take their land out of their possession; but, says God, I brought the Caphtorites against them and they destroyed them and dwelt in their stead, and now you are permitted to take it (that land) from their (the Caphtorites) possession (Chullin 60b).”¹¹ Interestingly, Rashi openly states the Avim are part of the Philistine people and their replacement by the Caphtorites is what allows the later Israelite conquest. Presumingly, the Avim are actually wiped out, or at least culturally removed from relevance by the Caphtorim. We are noticing a pattern where all of these groups seem to have some “reason” while the Israelites cannot wipe them out, necessitating a special listing of them in some form.

Commenting on the line “and the Avvim who dwelled in villages as far south as Gaza” are the Tosafists, grandchildren of Rashi, who say: “Moses now elaborates where the Chivvi is located. The letters ח and ע are used interchangeably. Do you want to know where to find the Chivvim? They dwell in hatzerim, They were so powerful that they did not bother to live in cities surrounded by a security wall, as they relied on their physical prowess to protect them.”¹² The Tosafists confirm this connection to the Hivites, even going so far as to say they lived in the exact same locations as the Avim, in similar lifestyles without the need for walled cities. This same Avim, Hivite, and snake connection is drawn by Ramban “Now since chivya is a snake, the word “Avim” likewise denotes the same.”¹³

Tugging at this snake theory, there are two very important Hyksos rulers from two differing dynasties: ‘Apepi and ‘Apophis’ (a second ruler named Apepi often called by his Greek name). Egyptian chronology from the Hyksos period is extremely foggy and densely clouded in mystery, but the first ‘Apepi appears to be dated sometime around the reign of Sheshi and Yaqub-Har.¹⁴ Sheshi is obviously important given he was named as one of the sons of the Anakim mentioned in our last section placing an Avim right alongside an Anakim as Canaanite Hyksos rulers of Egypt, and Philistia. The name “Yaqub-Har” clearly relates to Jacob and Hur, but is less specifically related to either of these figures and simply provides evidence for the common usage of these names in this period.

Connected is the fact that most of these Pharaohs ruled from their capital along the Pelusiac branch of the Nile at Avaris, conveniently named almost identical to Avim. Even the name of this easternmost branch of the Nile harkens to the “Peleset” and “Philistia” making it very likely there was a cultural ethno-genesis for these Hyksos, as well as both the Anakim and Avim, in the region.

The later, second Apophis ruled over the northern portion of Egypt for over forty years in the early half of the 16th century BCE. Despite his partial rule, he is clearly one of the more powerful Pharaohs and held sway even in parts of Egypt he failed to directly control. He coincided with the earlier mentioned Kamose, son of Ahhotep, as well as his brother Ahmose I who only fifteen years after the death of Apophis completely removes the final vestiges of Hyksos control over Egypt.¹⁵