Tuthmosis III's policy in Syria and Palestine was a very intelligent one. The entire region was split into small kingdoms, each with its tiny army, under a prince. Tuthmosis understood that these princes defended their right of self-government rather than their independence. After having defeated them, he normally set them at the head of their little states, insisting that they gave the most solemn assurances that they would never again take up arms against Egypt. But as a safeguard, he forced them to hand over sons and brothers as hostages, whom he sent to Thebes to be educated at the court as Egyptians.
It was normal practice, in the ancient world, to hand over hostages as a guarantee, also for treaties of alliance or of non-belligerency between independent potentates. It is practically certain, therefore, that Tuthmosis III made the Hittite ruler Tuthkalyash II, who was his ally in the war against Mithani, deliver hostages. Saushsha-Tar also had to give hostages to him as a guarantee for the peace treaty that followed his defeat. Neither the Egyptian nor the Mithani chronicles mention this treaty, but it is a natural and logical consequence. In fact, from then on there were no more wars between the two empires, whose rulers maintained idyllic relations for more than a century addressing each other as "brother" and exchanging gifts and brides.
While some doubt may exist as far as the date is concerned, there can be none regarding the fact that a peace treaty was negotiated between Egypt and Mithani. It is an historical norm for this type of treaty to immediately follow a war which concludes with the defeat of one of the participants. Therefore, we can reasonably assume that the two contracting parties were in reality Tuthmosis III and Saushsha-Tar. The latter did not become a vassal to Egypt, but having been defeated, he had to supply a guarantee as a back-up to the treaty.
We may, therefore, consider as fairly certain that Saushsha-Tar had handed over his relatives, sons or brothers, to Tuthmosis as hostages, although there exist no explicit accounts of this event. Abraham could have been one of these hostages. It is also certain that the Mithani king's relatives could not be treated on the same level as those of just any Syrian prince, since he was still the most powerful ruler after the Pharaoh. Tuthmosis, then, must have given them both solid guarantees of safety and adequate means of sustenance.
There were, thus, two types of hostages in the Egypt of Tuthmosis the Third: sons and other relatives of defeated princes reduced to conditions of vassalage on the one hand, and sons of independent rulers, who had signed treaties of alliance or of non-belligerency with Egypt, on the other. The legal position and the treatment given to these hostages must have been very different in each case. These considerations may be of help in solving a problem which has been evading a satisfactory solution for years--that of the Apiru.
It would appear certain that the name "Hebrew" is derived from Apiru, and for this reason a large number of scholars, especially in the past, have identified the Apiru with the ancestors of the Hebrews. However, in view of the ever-increasing number of documents in which this name appears, the theory became consistently less likely, since these Apiru do not present the characteristics of a true and proper race of people; rather they appear from time to time as mercenaries, bandits, marauders, political refugees, adventurers and so on. Furthermore, they make casual appearances both in space and time. They appear first at the end of the third millennium in both upper and lower Mesopotamia, in Syria, Palestine and Egypt, but invariably in different contexts and with different characteristics.
The term "Apiru" is composed of two words, the basic one meaning "stranger", while the other is of obscure meaning. An interesting theory which might help to solve the problem satisfactorily, is that the term described the hostages coming from independent potentates and were, therefore, "foreigners" with whom pacts of alliance or of non-belligerency were concluded. Thus, they were distinguished from those hostages supplied by vassal princes. They were, thus, "foreign" hostages, given servants and armed retainers, undoubtedly enjoying a certain controlled freedom and consideration far greater than that given to "domestic" hostages.
They maintained contact with their homeland, and their condition within the country holding them depended upon the reciprocal relations between the two contracting powers. Naturally, these relations developed over a period of time on the basis of this situation. This explains how the Apiru turn up from time to time in historical chronicles with different characteristics. It is easy to imagine how these Apiru, rich, numerous and powerful, could be a source of problems--particularly in the case of a change in strength between the two contracting powers, since they could be utilized by their old homeland to create disorder and other difficulties within the "host" country.
During the period of the 18th Dynasty, the Apiru present in the sphere of the Egyptian Empire were probably of two possible origins; they either came from the Hittite Empire or from the Mithani. In fact both became allied to Egypt, so they both probably supplied hostages as a guarantee that the clauses of the treaty be respected. The presence of Hittites in Palestine in Abraham's time is proved by the Bible itself; in fact, it shows they had frequent relations with the Jews. Abraham turned to them for the purchase of a sepulchre at Machpelah; Esau married Hittite women. The relationship between the two populations was respectful but friendly, as if they were living under the same conditions.
The Hittites of Hebron were most probably consigned to Tuthmosis III by Tuthkalyiash II as hostages when the two became allies against Saushsha-Tar. They were given the identical name of "Apiru," as with the Mithani hostages, and were probably the followers of one or more sons of the Hittite king. At the time of Amarna, according to the Ekhnaton correspondence, the Apiru had become strong and arrogant, interfering in the internal affairs of the Empire, enjoying some sort of impunity. According to the Bible, in that period the Apiru from Mithani had been installed for some time at Seir with Esau, and in the Transjordan with Moab and Ammon.
In Palestine proper there was only Jacob's tribe, which precisely in that period (the reconstruction of the exact times will be seen later) destroyed the city of Sechem. Objectively, however, it is very difficult to link this event with the notorious Apiru referred to in the Amarna letters. Probably, the complaints contained therein referred to the Apiru of Hittite origin. The Hittite Empire was in fact rising in power and looking to expand into Syria at the expense of Mithani and Egypt. The last king of Mithani, Tushratta, was repeatedly defeated by Suppiluliumas, king of Hatti, who managed to sack the capitol of the Empire, Wassukammi, and compelled northern Syria to pay tribute to him. Notwithstanding the alliance with the Mithani, Ekhnaton (Egypt’s Pharaoh) and his successor Tutankhamen did not intervene, but continued to maintain friendly relations with the Hittite Empire.
Suppiluliumas for his part, however, fomented disorder in the Egyptian Empire and managed to reduce the princes of northern Syria to vassals, without coming into direct conflict with the Pharaoh. Obviously the old Hittite hostages, transplanted in Egyptian territory, became an instrument of Suppiluliumas' aggressive policy and, incited and sustained by their homeland, had begun to create problems within the Egyptian Empire. The governors faithful to Egypt complained vociferously to the Pharaoh, invoking his intervention. But evidently Ekhnaton did not dare risk an open conflict with the Hittite Empire, apparently preferring to be satisfied with some formal declarations of loyalty. The Hittite influence grew to such a level that the widow of his successor, Tutankhamen, thought of offering her hand and the Egyptian throne to a son of Suppiluliumas, the Hittite Emperor. The Hittite Apiru were probably forced into obedience by the energetic Pharaoh Haremhab, and it may be that they disappeared, being absorbed into the vast Palestinian melting-pot.
The Mithani Apiru, on the other hand, survived and remained a population apart, which then became identifiable with the one tribe of Israel to whom the term was linked, gradually being transformed into that of "Hebrews".