10. Chapter I: The History of Joseph.—Gen. Chaps. 37-40.

Chapter I: The History of Joseph.—Gen. Chaps. 37-40.

Joseph Carried to Egypt and Sold to Potiphar.

ACCORDING to Geh 37, Joseph is sold by his brothers to an Arabian caravan who are going to Egypt with merchandize, and they sell him in Egypt. An argument for the early commencement of trade by caravans with Egypt is furnished by the fact, that the king Amun-m-gori II., of the 16th dynasty,^[98] erected a station in the Wady Jasoos, to command the wells which furnish water for those passing through the desert.^[99] The same author shows that slaves were procured by the Egyptians, not only in war, but also by purchase.^[100]

[98]The first king of Egypt was Menes, who, according toWilkinson,ascended the throne about 2320B.C.The kings from him to the invasion of Cambyses are divided byManethointo twenty-six dynasties. But very little is known of any of those who precede Osirtasen I., who belongs to the sixteenth dynasty. The names of most of the succeeding monarchs of the sixteenth, and those of the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties, often occur on the monuments, and are so often mentioned in this volume, that it was thought it might be well to insert here, with some slight changes, the table found inWilkinson.Thus, when the name of a king, as Amun-m-gori or Osirtasen occurs, by turning to this table, the date of his reign may be seen, and in some cases an important event which occurred during it. The eighteenth dynasty is of special interest in several respects. It was the period of conquest. In it most of the events recorded in the Books of Moses occurred. And a large part of the monuments were constructed about this time. Four hieroglyphical lists of the kings of this dynasty exist, in addition to the list ofManetho: “The Tablet of Abydos, the Procession of the Ramesseion, the Procession of Medeenet Haboo, and the Tomb of Gurnah.” The chronology ofWilkinsonhas been followed here, as generally in this volume, Those who are desirousof comparing that ofRosellini,will find it for substance inMr Gliddon’s“Ancient Egypt.”

[99]Wilkinson, Vol. I. pp. 45 and 46.

[100] Herod. 8. 105:παρὰποῖσι βαρβάροισι τιμιώτεροίεἰσι οἱευνοῦχοι,πίστος εἵνεκα τῆς πάσης,τῶν ενοριχίων.

The master of Joseph, Genesis 37:36, is designated as Potiphar, the eunuch of Pharaoh, chief of the body-guard (literally, the executioners). A eunuch in the literal sense cannot be meant. The term in this place is equivalent to court-officer. But the transferred signification rests upon the employments in which real eunuchs engaged,^[101] and thus it follows from this designation of Potiphar, that there were, in the opinion of the author, eunuchs, even in Egypt. Now v. Bohlen asserts, that it cannot be proved, that there were eunuchs in Egypt, and that the author is justly suspected of transferring that, which belonged to the Hebrew court, to Egypt. But this suspicion is removed by what Rosellini^[102] says of the existence of eunuchs in Egypt. Men are sometimes represented, he remarks, on the Egyptian monuments with evident marks of fulness, especially of the chest and stomach, which is unusual among the Egyptians in this hot climate. Their complexion is almost a medium between the brown and yellow by which men and women are generally distinguished from one another. These marks are characteristic of eunuchs. The employments of these men are also in favor of this opinion. They are repeatedly represented as attendants of the women, then as musicians, and finally as servants, who are entrusted with the important duties of household management. It is evident from Herodotus,^[103] that the kings of Egypt had a guard who in addition to the regular income of the soldier, also received a separate salary. In the paintings of marches and battles on the monuments, these royal guards are commonly seen to be employed in protecting the person of the king, and are distinguished by a peculiar dress and weapons.^[104] During the reign of the Ptolemies, who in general adhered to the usages of the ancient Egyptians, the office of the commander of the body-guard^[105] was a very important one. They possessed the confidence of the king, and were often employed in the most important business transactions.^[106] Finally, the superintendence of executions belonged to the most distinguished of the military cast.^{[107] [101]} Vol. I. pp. 403 and 4.

[102] Vol. II. 3. p. 132 seq.

[103] 2. 168.

[104] Ros. II. 3. p. 201.

[105]ἀρχισωματοφύλαξ.

[106] Comp. Rosellini, p. 202.

[107] P. 273.Before quitting this subject, it is necessary to say a word respecting Hengstenberg’s strange acquiescence in Bohlen’s assertion that Potiphar is described as a Eunuch. The wordסריסSeris,correctly rendered “officer” in our version, like the Greek word “eunuch,” originally (signified a “chamberlain,” or “attendant of state;” the root (סרס) is still preserved in the Aramaic, and designates a higher degree of servitude than the ordinary verb of submission (עבד). The instances of secondary meanings obliterating primary significations, are sufficiently common in every language; and Bohlen’s error, in which he is strangely followed by Hengstenberg arises from mistaking the secondary and prevalent signification of the word for its original and primary.

Josephʼs Exaltation.

According to Genesis 39:4 and Genesis 39:5, Potiphar placed Joseph over his house and over all his substance, and the Lord blessed him, for the sake of Joseph, in all which he had in the house and in the field. Joseph had also, after his exaltation, a man who was over his house.^[108] A peculiar and characteristic Egyptian trait! “Among the objects of tillage and husbandry,” says Rosellini, “which are portrayed in the Egyptian tombs, we often see a steward, who takes account and makes a registry of the harvest before it is deposited in the store-house.” “In a tomb at Kum el Ahmar, the office of a steward with all its apparatus is represented; two scribes appear with all their preparations for writing, and there are three rows of volumes, the account and household books of the steward,” etc.^[109] The same author remarks in reference to a painting in a tomb at Beni Hassan: “In this scene, as also in many others which exhibit the internal economy of a house, a man carrying implements for writing,—the pen over his ear, the tablet or paper in his hand, and the writing table under his arm,—either follows or goes before the servants.”^[110] According to the inscription, this is the overseer of the slaves or the steward. Compare also the representation in Wilkinson of an Egyptian steward in his employment, “overlooking the tillage of the lands.”^{[111] [108]} Genesis 43:16;Genesis 43:19;Genesis 44:1.

[109] II. 1. p. 329.

[110] II. p. 403, 4.

[111] II. p. 136.The favour which the Hebrew captive found with his master is not to be taken as a fair example of the conduct of the Egyptian slave-owners: “the Lord was with Joseph;” and to this, rather than to the clemency of Potiphar, the mildness of his servitude must be attributed. Most of the Egyptian slaves were captives taken in war. They were dragged to the market bound and fettered; and, with a disgraceful refinement of cruelty, they were bound in the most painful posture. Women and children shared the fate of their husbands and fathers. Melancholy processions of the unhappy beings frequently occur on the monuments; and the artists have, sometimes, depicted the joyous and thoughtless ignorance of infancy, contrasted with the anguish of an unhappy mother, too well acquainted with the miseries of her future lot. Here it may be remarked, that this representation explains a passage in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, which has given needless perplexity to many commentators; it forms part of his description of the woes inflicted on the vanquished by the Babylonian conquerors of Jerusalem: “The yoke of my transgressions is bound by his hand : they are wreathed, and come up upon my neck : he hath made my strength to fall, the Lord hath delivered me into their hands, from whom 1 am not able to rise up.” (Lamentations 1:14.) The “binding on of the yoke”—the “wreathing of the penal bonds around the neck,” are frequently represented on the monuments; and it requires no great stretch of imagination to conceive, that if the march be of long duration the “strength” of the captives must “fall, and render them unable to rise up.” The treatment of Joseph himself, on the false accusation of Potiphar’s wife, (the Zuleikha of Eastern tradition,) is a sufficient proof of the inhumanity exhibited to slaves. “His feet they set in the stocks, the iron entered into his soul;” and if any faith is to be placed in Rabbinical legends, he was frequently brought out to be tortured for the amusement of the infamous Zuleikha.

Joseph’s Temptation and the Morals of the Egyptians. With impudent shamelessness Potiphar’s wife seeks to seduce Joseph.^[112] How great the corruption of manners with reference to the marriage relation was among the Egyptians, appears from Herodotus,^[113] whose account Larcher has compared with the one under consideration. The wife of one of the oldest kings was untrue to him. It was a long time before a woman could be found who was faithful to her husband. And when one was, at last, found, the king took her without hesitation for himself. From such a state of morals, the Biblical narrative can easily be conceived to be natural. The evidence of the monuments is also not very favorable to the Egyptian women. Thus, they are represented, as addicted to excess in drinking wine, as even becoming so much intoxicated as to be unable to stand or walk alone, or “to carry their liquor discreetly.”^[114]

^[112] Chap. 39.

[113] 2. 111.

[114]Compare Wilkinson, Vol. II. p. 167.

Potiphar’s wife avails herself of the opportunity when her husband and the rest of the men of the house were gone out, and Joseph had come in to perform some duty.^[115] It has lately been affirmed, that an error against Egyptian customs is here detected. V. Bohlen says: “Since eunuchs are supposed to exist, Joseph could not so much as come into the presence of the women, still less into the harem;” and Tuch remarks: “The narrator abandons the representation of a distinguished Egyptian, in whose house the women live separately, and descends to a common domestic establishment,” etc. The error, however, lies here, not on the side of the author, but on that of his critics. They are guilty of inadvertently transferring that which universally prevails in the East to Egypt, which the author avoids, and thereby exhibits his knowledge of the condition of the Egyptians. According to the monuments, the women in Egypt lived under far less restraint, than in the East, or even in Greece.^{[116] [115]} Comp. v. 11.

[116] See the proof in Wilk. Vol. II. p. 389.Some of the Egyptian artists have represented ladies sitting unveiled at banquets, and indulging in large libations of wine, and in some instances they exhibit the consequences of such excesses. The delineations of Egyptian social intercourse are especially appropriate here. Taylor,^[117] collecting in few words the results as they are, without reference to our passage, says: “In some entertainments, we find the ladies and gentlemen of a party in different rooms; but in others, we find them in the same apartment, mingling together with all the social freedom of modern Europeans. The children were allowed the same liberty as the women; instead of being shut up in the harem, as is now usual in the East, they were introduced into company, and were permitted to sit by the mother or on the father’s knee.”^[118]

^[117] p. 171.

[118]Several captious objections have been made to the history of Joseph’s imprisonment: it is said that prisons were not likely to be used in the age of the early Pharaohs, and that, if used, it is improbable that the prisoners would be allowed any opportunities of communication. It is, indeed, very doubtful, whether simple incarceration was ever employed as a punishment under the Pharaohs ; criminals and captives were always employed in public works, and it is remarkable that the Samaritan text, instead ofביתהסהBeth Hasachar,“the house of confinement,” readsביתהסחרBeth Hasachar,“the house of employment” or “emolument;” and when Pharaoh sent for Joseph, a different word is used for the place of his confinement, viz.בורBor,“an excavated dungeon.” The superintendence over the other captives granted to Joseph, still further proves, that he was confined in a kind of workhouse. The Dream of the Chief Baker of Pharaoh.

According to Genesis 40:16, the chief baker,^[119] in his dream, carries three wicker baskets with various choice baker’s commodities on his head. Similar woven baskets, flat (which the circumstance that the three are placed one upon another here implies) and open, for carrying grapes and other fruits, are found represented on the monuments.^[120] The art of baking was carried to a high degree of perfection among the Egyptians. Rosellini says, after describing the kitchen scenes upon the tomb of Remeses IV. at Biban el Moluk: “From all these representations, it is clear that the Egyptians were accustomed to prepare many kinds of pastry for the table, as we see the very same kinds spread out upon the altars and tables which are represented in the tombs. They made even bread in many and various forms. These articles are found in the tombs kneaded from barley or wheat, in the form of a star, a triangle, a disk, and other such like things.”^[121] But the custom of carrying on the head is most peculiar and characteristic of Egypt, and it is so much the more to be remarked, as it is mentioned incidentally, and the author does not characterize it as a custom peculiar to the Egyptians. Herodotus^[122] mentions the habit of bearing burdens on the head by the men, as one by which the Egyptians are distinguished from all other people: “Men bear burdens on their heads, and women on their shoulders.” Examples of this custom are frequently found upon the monuments.^[123] To be sure, the monuments also show, what is evident without argument, that the custom was not universal.^{[124] [119]} As most of the Egyptian meats were baked, this officer must have been also the head-cook of the palace.

[120] Wilk. II. 151-2.

[121] Vol. II. 2. p. 464. Compare the representation of these different kinds of pastry, etc., in Wilkinson, Vol. II. p. 385.

[122] 2. 35.

[123] Compare drawings in Wilkinson, Vol. II. p. 151-2 and Vol. III. p. 385, where a man is carrying bread or cakes to the oven upon a long board.]] [124] Costaz in the Descr. t. 6. p. 138. Wilk. as above. Rosellini, II. p. 453.

Pharaoh’s Dream and the Magicians of Egypt. In the account of Pharaoh’s dream, Genesis 41:1 seq., we are first struck with the use of the word אָחוּ (Achoo), Nile-grass,^[125] —an Egyptian word for an Egyptian thing. In the next place, the seven poor and the seven fat kine attract our attention. The symbol of the cow is very peculiar and exclusively Egyptian. Upon the signification of this symbol we have two important passages, one from Plutarch:^[126] “They consider the cow as the image of Isis and the earth,” i.e. the symbol of them.^[127] The other is found in Clemens:^[128] “The cow is the symbol of the earth itself and its cultivation, and of food.” Now, therefore, since the cow is the symbol of fruitfulness, it appears entirely natural, that the difference of the year in respect to fruitfulness was represented by the different condition of the kine—that unfruitful years were denoted by lean kine. It is scarcely conceivable that a foreign inventor should have confined himself so closely to the peculiar Egyptian symbols. The circumstance that the kine come up out of the Nile, the fat and also the lean, has reference to the fact that Egypt owes all its fertility to this stream, and that famine succeeds as soon as it fails.

[125] Our translators have inaccurately rendered it “meadow;” the aquatictic plants of the Nile, particularly those of the litus-kind, were so valuable in Egypt that they were reaped in as regular a harvest as the flax and corn. It is to be regretted that the slight inaccuracy of the authorized version obscures the force of this proof of the sacred writer’s familiarity with the minute peculiarities of Egypt: the most captious objector—even Bohlen himself—must confess, that the history of Joseph could only have been written by a person well acquainted with the land and the natural productions of the Valley of the Nile.

[126]In Bähr upon Herod. 2. 41.

[127]Βοῦν γὰρ Ἴσιδος εἰκόνα καὶγῆν νομίζομσι, upon which Bähr: Manet vacca Isidis signum procreatricisque naturae symbolum.

[128] Strom. B. V. p. 671. Potter.

According to Genesis 41:8, Pharaoh calls “all the magicians of Egypt and all the wise men thereof,” that they may interpret his dream, by which he is troubled. These same magicians appear also in Exodus 7:11 : “Then Pharaoh called the wise men and the sorcerers; and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did in like manner by their enchantments;” and they are also represented in Exodus 8:3; Exodus 8:14-15—(Exodus 8:7, Exodus 8:18-19.) Exodus 9:11, as the wise men of the nation, the possessors of secret arts.

Now we find in Egyptian antiquity, an order of persons, to whom this is entirely appropriate, which is here ascribed to the magicians. The priests had a double office, the practical worship of the gods, and the pursuit of that which in Egypt was accounted as wisdom. The first belonged to the so-called prophets, the second to the holy scribes, ἱεροτραμματεῖς. These last were the learned men of the nation; as in the Pentateuch, they are called wise men, so the classical writers named them sages.^[129] These men were applied to for explanation and aid in all things which lay beyond the circle of common knowledge and action. Thus, in severe cases of sickness, for example, along with the physician a holy scribe was called, who from a book and astrological signs determined whether recovery was possible.^[130] The interpretation of dreams, and also divination belonged to the order of the holy scribes.^[131] In times of pestilence, they applied themselves to magic arts to avert the disease.^[132] A passage in Lucian^[133] furnishes a peculiarly interesting parallel to the accounts of the Pentateuch concerning the practice of magic arts: “There was with us in the vessel, a man of Memphis, one of the holy scribes, wonderful in wisdom and skilled in all sorts of Egyptian knowledge. It was said of him, that he had lived twenty-three years in subterranean sanctuaries, and that he had been there instructed in magic by Isis.”^[134]

^[129] Compare Jablonski, Panth. Proll. p. 31 seq. Drumann, Inschrift von Rosetta, S. 122, ff.Pharaoh is represented as consulting two different classes of persons for the interpretation of his dream, theחרטזמיםCharetummím(magicians), and theחכמיםChakamim(wise men). If the first be a Semitic name, which we see no reason to doubt, it is one of the few examples of Hebrew compounds, and must come from BinCheret“a pen,” andחרםCharam“to be sacred:” we thus identify theCharetummimwith theἱεροτραμματεῖςor “holy scribes” mentioned as a distinct order of the Egyptian priesthood by Josephus and several other authors. This class appears to have been independent of caste; among the Hindus learning was allowed to redeem lowness of caste, a circumstance on which many of their traditional legends turn. There is reason to believe, that both Joseph and Moses were raised to this order, for Joseph asks his brethren, “Wot ye not that such a man as I can certainlydivine?” and Moses is described as “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.”

[130]Drumann, S. 129.

[131] S. 130.

[132] S. 130.

[133] In Jablonski, p. 95.

[134]Ἔτυχεν ἡμῖν συμπλέων Μεμφίσης ἀνὴρ,τῶν ἱερῶν γραμματέων,θαυμάσιος τὴν σοφίαν καὶτὴν παιδείαν πᾶσαν εἰδὼς τὴν Αιγίπτιον ἐλέγετο δὲπρία καὶεἴκοσιν ἔτη ἐν τοῖς ἀδύτοις ἑπογείοις ὠκηκέναι,μαγεύειν παιδευόμενος ὑπὸτῆς Ἴσιδος. The Hair and Beard—How Worn in Egypt. When Joseph is called before Pharaoh he shaves himself, Genesis 41:14. Even the most prejudiced, as for example, v. Bohlen, must, in this incidental notice, recognize a purely Egyptian custom. Even Herodotus^[135] mentions it among the distinguishing peculiarities of the Egyptians, that they commonly were shaved, but in mourning they allowed the beard to grow.^[136] The sculptures also agree with this representation. “So particular,” says Wilkinson,^[137] “were they on this point, that to have neglected it was a subject of reproach and ridicule; and whenever they intended to convey the idea of a man of low condition, or a slovenly person, the artists represented him with a beard.” “Although foreigners,” says the same author,^[138] “who were brought to Egypt as slaves had beards on their arrival in the country, we find that as soon as they were employed in the service of this civilized people, they were obliged to conform to the cleanly habits of their masters; their beards and head were shaved; and they adopted a close cap.” According to Roselli^[139] the priests shaved not the beard only, but also the head; and others, if they did not shave it with a razor, were accustomed to wear the hair very short; the abundant and long hair which often covers the head of the figures on the monuments was probably false like our wigs. The same author remarks, that this was considered, by the neighboring nations, and especially by the Asiatics, as a peculiar and distinguishing characteristic of the Egyptians.^{[140] [135]} Chap. 2. 35.

[136] See Bähr upon this passage, S. 558.

[137] Vol. III. p. 357.

[138] III. p. 358.

[139] Vol. 1. 2. p. 486 seq.

[140] Vol. II. 2. p 395.

Dress and Ornaments of the Egyptians.

According to Genesis 41:42, Pharaoh put upon Joseph at the time of his advancement, his signet-ring, and arrayed him in garments of byssus, and put the gold chain (the article shows that it was done in reference to a custom common in such a case) about his neck. As the gift of the seal-ring is not peculiar to Egypt, but common in the East, we do not delay upon it.^[141] But the garments of byssus belong necessarily to the naturalizing of Joseph. Garments of cloth from the vegetable kingdom, linen and cotton, were considered by the Egyptians as pure and holy, and were in high estimation among them; the priests wore these only, according to Herodotus, 2. 37, where the term linen in opposition to woollen includes also cotton.^[142] And even among the rest of the Egyptians, these were the most valued garments. Herodotus says: “They wear woollen garments which are ever newly washed,”^[143] and the woollen garments which they commonly wore for outer garments were thrown off as soon as they entered the temple.^[144] In reference to the third mark of distinction, the putting on of the necklace, the monuments furnish abundant explanation. In the tombs of Beni Hassan,^[145] many slaves are represented, each of whom has in his hand something which belongs to the dress or ornaments of his master. The first carries one of the necklaces with which the neck and breast of persons of high rank are generally adorned. Over it stands: Necklace of Gold. At Beni Hassan there is also a similar representation in another tomb of a noble Egyptian.^[146] By the form of the necklace, it is remarked,^[147] the distinction of individuals in regard to rank and dignity was probably denoted. Men of the common order seldom wear such ornaments, while the pictures of the kings and the great are always adorned with them.^[148]

^[141] Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it uponJoseph’s hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; and he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee : and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt.” (Genesis 41:41-43) Investiture of office is here given by the signet-ring, theKheldt,or dress of honour, the necklace, and the privilege of riding in the second chariot. At the present day, public documents in the East are more frequently authenticated by the royal signet than by the sign manual: the seal, however, is a stamp giving an impression with ink, similar to those made for Henry the Eighth and George the Fourth, when disease rendered those monarchs incapable of writing, and is rarely used to give an impression on wax, or any similar substance. It would lead us too far from our immediate subject, to elucidate many passages in Holy Writ which are commonly misunderstood from ignorance of the Oriental use of the seal; it is sufficient to say, that the bestowing of it on Joseph was equivalent to intrusting him with the charge of the administration; because its impression attached to any document gave it as much authority as if it had been signed by the king’s own hand.

[142]Heeren, p. 133.

[143] Herod. 2. 37.

[144] Herod. 2. 81, and Heeren in the passage above referred to.

[145] Rosellini, II. 2. p. 404.

[146]Ros. II. 2. p. 412.

[147] Ros. II. 2. 420.

[148] See concerning the necklaces of the Egyptians, which in like manner also pertained to the costume of the gods, Wilkinson, Vol. II. p. 215 and Vol. III. p. 375-6 with the plate, 409 M.The “vesture of fine linen” was a dress peculiarly Egyptian; Herodotus informs us that the priests wore no others, which however must be limited to the supreme hierarchy. From the example of the horizontal loom, we find that the Egyptians were acquainted with the art of weaving colours in chequers like the Scottish plaids, but that the process, from the simplicity of their machinery, must have been both tedious and expensive. It was probably such a garment which Jacob bestowed upon Joseph, (“a coat of many colours,”Genesis 37:3); and the envy of the other brothers was excited, not merely by the beauty of the dress, but by the fact that such a dress was a symbol of power and authority. The necklace appears on the monuments as a regular ensign of rank; and Bohlen’s objection that such ornaments were not used in the time of the Pharaohs, is refuted, not merely by the pictorial representations, but by the actual discovery of the necklaces themselves in the Egyptian tombs: there are some beautiful specimens of them in the British Museum. The remark of v. Bohlen upon Genesis 41:42 : “It is however scarcely necessary to mention that these objects of luxury, especially polished stones, belong to a later time,” has interest only as it shows how far the investigations of the Rationalists, in reference to the Pentateuch, fall short of the present advanced state of knowledge respecting Egyptian antiquity. It is now far too late for such remarks. The Marriage of Joseph.

According to Genesis 41:45, Pharaoh gives to Joseph, Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera the priest of On, in marriage. The name Potiphera, Petephra, he who belongs to the sun, is very common on the Egyptian monuments.^[149] This name is especially appropriate for the priest of On or Heliopolis. Since Pharaoh evidently intended by this act to establish the power bestowed on Joseph upon a firm basis, it is implied in this account: first, that the Egyptian high-priests occupied a very important position, and secondly, that among them the high-priest of On was the most distinguished. Both these points are confirmed by history. The following words of Heeren^[150] will show how conspicuous the station of the high-priests in general was: “The priesthood belonging to each temple were again organized among themselves with the greatest exactness. They had a high-priest, whose office was also hereditary. It is scarcely necessary to mention, that the stations of the high-priests in the principal cities in Egypt were first and highest. They were in a manner hereditary princes, who stood by the side of the kings, and enjoyed almost the same prerogatives. Their Egyptian title, Piromis,^[151] was, according to the explanation of Herodotus,^[152] equivalent to the noble and good (καλὸς κᾳγαθός); which however does not refer perhaps to moral character, but to nobility of descent. Their statues were placed in the temples. When they are introduced into history, they appear as the first persons of the State.” The passage of Bähr^[153] on Herodotus, 2. 3, (where the priests of Heliopolis are described as the most learned among all the Egyptians,) shows, that among the Egyptian colleges of priests, the one at On or Heliopolis took the precedence; consequently the high-priest of On was the most distinguished. The great antiquity of religious worship at On is also attested by the monuments. Wilkinson says: “During the reign of Osirtasen (whom he makes contemporary with Moses), the temple of Heliopolis was either founded or received additions, and one of the obelisks bearing his name attests the skill to which they had attained in the difficult art of sculpturing granite.”^{[154] [149]} Rosellini, 1.1. p. 117.

[150] S. 128.

[151]Herodotusundoubtedly is mistaken in regard to the meaning of this word. It signifiesthe man,and is composed of the Egyptian article prefixed to ‘romi,’ man. SeeWilkinson,Man. and Cus., second series, Vol. I. p. 170.

[152]2. 143.

[153] Videntur fuisse tria omnino potiora Aeg. sacerdotum collegia Memphiticum, Thebaicum et Heliopolitanum, in quibus Heliopolitae primum locum obtinuerunt, si quidem vera retulit Strabo, l. 17. p. 1158 D., solis templum una cum aedibus sacerdotum accurate describens et pluribus de illorum doctrina et disciplina disserens.

[154] Vol. I. p. 44.

V. Bohlen has attempted to make out a contradiction in this account, which accords in so remarkable a manner with the state of affairs in Egypt. “An alliance of intolerant priests,” says he, “with a foreign shepherd is entirely opposed to the character of the Egyptians.”^[155] But the connection took place in obedience to the command of the king, and the high-priest of On the less dared to disobey the king, since according to the result of modern investigations, the Pharaohs themselves at all times were invested with the highest sacerdotal dignity,^[156] and consequently possessed not an external authority merely, over (he priesthood. The transaction assumes an entirely different aspect when we consider that Joseph did not by any means marry the daughter of the high-priest while a foreign shepherd, but after he had been fully naturalized by the king, had assumed the Egyptian dress, taken an Egyptian name, etc. Chap. Genesis 43:32 shows, that Joseph had formally withdrawn from the community of his own people, and connected himself with the Egyptians.^[157] In the circumstance that this is represented as necessary, as well as in the fact that Pharaoh believed it important to give a firm basis to the position of Joseph by a union with the daughter of the high-priest of On, we plainly recognize the traces of that Egyptian intolerance, which v. Bohlen fails to perceive here, and which in later times certainly appears to have very much increased. To this we shall have occasion hereafter to advert.

[155] p. 388.The chief difficulties in the history of Joseph will be removed, if we can show that there was an order of “prophets,” “magicians,” or “sacred scribes “ distinct from the priestly caste, inferior indeed to theChakamim,or chief priests, but not so far removed from them in dignity as to be excluded from their alliance. To avoid anything like a parade of learning, we shall state the evidence for the existence of a “sacred order” distinct from a “sacred caste,” as briefly as possible. In the fourth and fifth lines of the Greek inscription on the Rosetta Stone, in the British Museum, we find Grecian ladies—and, among others, Irene, the daughter of Ptolemy—recorded as “priestesses;” a conclusive proof that strangers were admitted into some kind of sacerdotal order under the Macedonian kings of Egypt; though it is notorious that the chief policy of the Ptolemies was to restore the religious institutions of the Pharaohs. Diodorus Siculus describes Athyrtis, the daughter of King Sesoosis, as remarkably skilful in divination (μαντικη χρωμενην),and taking her omens from sacrifices and visions in the temple itself. The sixth line of the Rosetta Stone thus enumerates the members of the Egyptian hierarchy: “The chief priests and prophets, and those who have access to the shrines to clothe the gods, and thepterophorœ,and the sacred scribes, and all the other sacred persons.” Now thepterophorœ(“wing-bearers”) appear to have been a higher order of the “sacred scribes.” Diodorus Siculus expressly mentions the wearing of wings on the head as an attribute of this class, (i. 87); and Clemens Alexandrinus usesεχων πτερα επι της κεφαλης(having wings over the head) as an equivalent toιερογραμματευς(“sacred scribe.”) Now, it appears exceedingly improbable that any ceremony similar to ordination should be requisite in the case of a hereditary priesthood; but we find, from the monuments, that such a form was used in Egypt, and the smaller size of the person thus initiated, intimates his inferiority to the officiating priests. The “ winged sun,” under which the ceremony is performed, was the well-known symbol of “a protecting and superintending Providence;” and hence the beautiful allusion of the prophet Malachi : “Unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings ; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.” (Malachi 4:2.) The wings ascribed to the sacred scribes have probably a reference to this symbol; for, as the learned Drunann justly observes, Hesychius givesπτερον(a wing) as an equivalent toσκηνη(any overshadowing); and hence, instead of actually wearing wings on their heads, thepterophorœmay merely have displayed this symbol above it. Lucian speaks of the “sacred scribes” as a body distinct from the priesthood; and we find Moses making a similar distinction between the priests and the professors ofmagical arts. (Deuteronomy 13:10). We have been rather minute in our examination of this point, because one of the greatest objections brought against this part of the Sacred Writings is the improbability of a foreigner like Joseph being allowed to exercise sacerdotal functions, and form a priestly connection. But this improbability is removed when we find a sacerdotal order into which distinguished persons were admitted, without any reference to their descent; and we may add, that Pythagoras, according to Plutarch, was similarly admitted to the privileges of the Egyptian priesthood, though a foreigner, by command of King Amasis. 

[156]Leemans, lettre to Mr. Salvolini, p. 14.

[157] It is quite clear from the narrative, that Joseph had taken extraordinary pains to naturalize himself in Egypt. As a stranger is said to have been recognised in Athens from the superior purity of his Attic dialect, so the chief means by which Joseph could be recognised as a foreigner, was his greater strictness in adhering to purely Egyptian usages. This strictness had nearly led to his detection, when he caused his brethren to be marshalled at the banquet in the order of their age. “And they sat before him, the first-born according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth: and the men marvelled one at another.” (Genesis 42:33.) The mention of the posture used at table, proves that the writer of the history was well acquainted with Egyptian customs, for the patriarchal usage was to recline at meals. (Genesis 18:4.) There are indeed frequent instances of couches on the Egyptian monuments, but these were only used for sleeping; in all the representations of entertainments the ladies and gentlemen are depicted sitting on stools or chairs. It is also mentioned that Joseph sat apart from the rest, and we find from the monuments that a separate table was usually placed before each of the distinguished guests present. The number and variety of dishes sot on each table were proportioned to the rank of each guest, or to the estimation in which he was held by the person who gave the entertainment. To this custom allusion is distinctly made by the sacred writer. (Genesis 43:34.) 

Joseph Collects the Produce of the Seven Years of Plenty. The labors of Joseph described in Genesis 41:48-49, in building store-houses, are placed vividly before us in the paintings upon the monuments, which show how common the store-house was in ancient Egypt. In a tomb at Elethya a man is represented whose business it evidently was to take account of the number of bushels which another man acting under him measures. The inscription is as follows: The writer or registrar of bushels, Thutnofre. Then follows the transportation of the grain. From the measurer others take it in sacks and carry it to the store-houses. In the tomb of Amenemhe at Beni Hassan, there is the painting of a great store-house, before whose door lies a large heap of grain, already winnowed. The measurer fills a bushel in order to pour it into the uniform sacks of those who carry the grain to the corn-magazine. The carriers go to the door of the store-house and lay down the sacks before an officer who stands ready to receive the corn. This is the overseer of the storehouse. Nearby stands the bushel with which it is measured and the registrar who takes the account. At the side of the windows there are characters which indicate the quantity of the mass which is deposited in the magazine. Compare with this the clause,^[158] “Until he left numbering,” in Genesis 41:49. By these paintings, light is also thrown upon the remark in Exodus 1:11 : “And they [the Israelites] built for Pharaoh treasure-cities.”^{[159] [158]} Rosellini, II. p. 324 seq.

[159] According to Champollion, Briefe, S. 228, the wide halls of the great palace at Thebes, which are surrounded by large colonnades, all have the name Manosk, according to the Egyptian inscription, i.e. the place of the harvest, and hence is derived, the place where corn is measured. Is this Manosk probably the same asמִסְכְנוֹת(Hebrew)?Here we may remark, that the Egyptians paid great attention to the storing of their corn; the granaries appear to have been public buildings; they are represented on the monuments as of vast extent, and it deserves to be remarked, that the roofs are generally arched. They were probably excavated, and this may serve as a confirmation of the theory, that the first notion of the arch was suggested by caves. When we see the vast extent of these stores, as represented on the monuments, we cannot doubt that they would contain sufficient corn to supply not only the wants of Egypt, but also of the neighbouring nations, during the seven years of famine. 

Famine in Egypt and the Adjoining Countries. The declaration that famine seized at the same time upon Egypt and the adjoining country, appears at first view suspicious, and indeed with reference to this also, v. Bohlen^[160] has very confidently charged the author with ignorance of the natural condition of Egypt. The climate and tillage of Egypt do not stand in even the most remote connection with Palestine. In Egypt fertility depends, not as in Palestine, on the rains, but entirely on the overflowing of the Nile. But on a closer examination the suspicion changes into its direct opposite. The account of the author is shown to be entirely in accordance with natural phenomena, and the reproach of “ignorance respecting the country of Egypt” comes back upon him who made the accusation. Had the author known Egypt only by hearsay, he would probably have written in the manner that v. Bohlen demands of him. The fruitfulness of Egypt depends, it is true, upon the inundations of the Nile. But these are occasioned, as even Herodotus knew, by the tropical rains which fall upon the Abyssinian mountains.^[161] These rains have the same origin with those in Palestine. “It is now decided,” says Le Père,^[162] “that the Nile owes its increase to the violent rains which proceed from the clouds that are formed upon the Mediterranean Sea, and carried so far by the winds, which annually at nearly the same time blow from the north. There are not wanting also other examples of years of dearth which were common to Egypt with the adjoining countries. Thus Macrizi^[163] describes a famine which took place in Egypt, on account of a deficiency in the increase of the Nile in the year of the Hejra 444, which at the same time extended over Syria and even to Bagdad.

[160]S. 421.

[161]Ritter Erdk. 1. S. 835.

[162] Descr. t. 7. p. 576.

[163] In Quatremère, Mem, s. l’ Eg. t. 2. p. 313. But v. Bohlen goes so far as even to impute it to the author’s “ignorance of the natural condition of Egypt,” that he represents a famine as coming upon this country at all. The overflowing of the Nile never fails to take place altogether, or for several years in succession, and the Delta is fruitful even without it, etc. And yet there is scarcely a land on the earth in which famine has raged, so often and so terribly as in this same Egypt, or a land that so very much needs the measures which Joseph adopted for the preservation of the people. Macrizi could write a whole volume on the famines in Egypt! The swelling of the Nile a few feet above or below what is necessary proves alike destructive.^[164] Particular instances of famine which history has handed down to us, are truly horrible, and the accounts of them are worthy of notice also, inasmuch as they present the services of Joseph in behalf of Egypt in their true light. Abdollatiph^[165] relates thus: “In the year 569 (1199) the height of the flood was small almost without example. The consequence was a terrible famine accompanied by indescribable enormities. Parents consumed their children, human flesh was in fact a very common article of food; they contrived various ways of preparing it. They spoke of it and heard it spoken of as an indifferent affair. Man-catching became a regular business. The greater part of the population were swept away by death. In the following year also, the inundation did not reach the proper height, and only the low lands were overflowed. Also much of that which was inundated could not be sown for want of laborers and seed, much was destroyed by worms which devoured the seed corn; also of the seed which escaped this destruction, a great part produced only meagre shoots which perished.” Compare with this account the “thin ears and blasted with the east wind,” in Genesis 41:6. Macrizi^[166] has given an account of the famine in 457, which was not at all less severe than that of 596. The calif himself nearly perished with hunger.

[164] Le Père, Descr. 18. p. 573.

[165] Page 332 seq. De Sacy.

[166] In Quatremère, t. 2. p. 401 seq.

Joseph, his Brethren and the EgyptiansSITat an Entertainment.

According to Genesis 43:32, at the entertainment to which Joseph invited his brethren, they sat apart from the Egyptians, while Joseph was again separated from both. The author shows the reason of this in the remark: “Because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.” Herodotus^[167] also remarks, that the Egyptians abstained from all familiar intercourse with foreigners, since these were unclean to them, especially because they slew and ate the animals which were sacred among the Egyptians. “Therefore as (since the Egyptians honor much the cow) no Egyptian man or woman will kiss a Greek upon the mouth, they also use no knife or fork or kettle of a Greek, and will not even eat any flesh of a clean beast^[168] if it has been cut up with a Grecian knife.” The circumstance that Joseph eats separately from the other Egyptians is strictly in accordance with the great difference of rank, and the spirit of caste^[169] which prevailed among the Egyptians.

[167] 2. 41.

[168] From this passage it may be inferred with how much propriety v. Bohlen has asserted, that the Egyptians abstained from all animal food.

[169]The people in Egypt were divided into four great classes, and each of these were again subdivided. The first was the sacerdotal caste, consisting of priests of various grades, scribes, embalmers, &c. The second was the agricultural class, including the military order, farmers, gardeners, and persons of similar occupations. The third class were the townsmen, composed of artificers, tradesmen, &c. The fourth class, the common people, included factors, labourers, and various others. The military order seems to have been much more honoured than the rest of the second class, if indeed they did not compose a separate caste. The king could be chosen only from among them or the sacerdotal order. If chosen from the military caste, he was immediately admitted to the order of priests, and instructed in all their secret learning. The subject of caste is discussed at large in Wilkinson, Vol. I. p. 236 seq., and Vol. II. p. 1 seq., to whom the reader is referred.

It appears from Genesis 43:33, that the brothers of Joseph sat before him at the table, while according to patriarchal practice they were accustomed to recline.^[170] It appears from the sculptures, that the Egyptians also were in the habit of sitting at table, although they had couches.^[171] Sofas were used for sleeping. In a painting in Rosellini,^[172] “each one of the guests sits upon a stool, which in accordance with their custom took the place of the couch.”

[170] See chap. 18:4, “rest yourselves.”

[171] Wilk. 2. p. 201.

[172] Ros. II. 2. p. 439, T. 79. The Practice of Divining by Cups. The steward of Joseph, Genesis 44:5, in order to magnify the value of the cup which his brothers were said to have stolen, designates it as that out of which he divineth. Jamblichus, in his book on Egyptian mysteries, mentions the practice of divining by cups.^[173] That this superstition, well as many others, has continued even to modern times, is shown by a remarkable passage in Norden’s Travels.^[174] When the author with his companions had arrived at Derri, the most remote extremity of Egypt, or rather in Nubia, where they were able to deliver themselves from a perilous condition only through great presence of mind, they sent one of their company to a malicious and powerful Arab, to threaten him. He answered them: “I know what sort of people you are. I have consulted my cup and found in it that you are from a people of whom one of our prophets has said: There will come Franks under every kind of pretence to spy out the land. They will bring hither with them a great multitude of their country-men, to conquer the country and to destroy all of the people.”

[173] 3 Part, 14. p. 68. Divination by the cup is one of the most ancient forms of superstition, and traces of it are still to be found in the rural districts of England.

[174] Vol. III. p. 68. Edit. Langlés, quoted from Burder in Rosenm. Alt. u. Neu. Morgenl. Th. I. S. 212. The Arrival of Jacob and his Family in Egypt, and Their Settlement in Goshen. A remarkable parallel to the description of the arrival of Jacob’s family in Egypt, Genesis 46, is furnished by a scene in a tomb at Beni Hassan: “strangers” who arrive in Egypt.^[175] They carry their goods with them upon asses. The number 37 is written over them in hieroglyphics. The first figure is an Egyptian scribe, who presents an account of their arrival to a person in a sitting posture, the owner of the tomb and one of the principal officers of the reigning Pharaoh.^[176] The next, likewise an Egyptian, ushers them into his presence, and two of the strangers advance, bringing presents, the wild goat and the gazelle, probably as productions of their country. Four men with bows and clubs follow leading an ass, on which there are two children in panniers, accompanied by a boy and four women. Last, another ass laden and two men, one of whom carries a bow and club, and the other a lyre, which he plays with the plectrum. “All the men have beards, contrary to the custom of the Egyptians, although very general in the East at that period, and represented in their sculptures as a peculiarity of foreign uncivilized nations.” Some believe that this painting has a direct reference to the arrival of Jacob with his family in Egypt. On the contrary, Wilkinson^[177] remarks, the expression, “captives,” which appears in the inscription, makes it probable that they are of the number of prisoners so frequently occurring, who were taken captive by the Egyptians during their wars in Asia. But in his more recent work, he considers this circumstance as no longer decisive. “The contemptuous expressions,” he says, “common among the Egyptians in speaking of foreigners, might account for the use of this word.” In fact, it speaks very decidedly against the idea of their being prisoners, that they are armed.^[178] Whether this painting has a direct reference to the Israelites will of course ever remain problematical, but it is at any rate very noticeable, as it furnishes proof that emigration with women and children, into the Egyptian State, and formal admission, took place even in very ancient times, or more correctly yet, in these times.

[175]Wilkinson, Vol. II. p. 296 and 7, and plate.

[176]Comp. the phrase, “Princes of Pharaoh,” in chap. 12:15.

[177] Egypt and Thebes, p. 26.

[178] Rosellini, who speaks at length on this representation, in a separate section, Vol. III. 1. p. 48 seq., “Concerning a picture of the tombs of Beni Hassan, representing some foreign slaves which are sent by king Osirtasen II. as a present to a military chieftain,” considers it certain, that these individuals are captives, since they are so designated in the inscription. But even the inscription, when it is allowed to have its just and certain significance, gives no support to this opinion, since the epithet, captives, as Wilkinson supposes, maybe adequately accounted for by the pompous style of the Egyptians, and their disdainful arrogance, which would not allow them to speak of foreigners except in connection with victory and captivity. At any rate, the picture is more to be relied on than the inscription, and in this, in addition to the fact that they are armed, which has already been mentioned, the circumstance, that the persons delineated bring gifts and play on musical instruments, things which captives are not and cannot be found represented as doing on the Egyptian monuments, is decisive.

Joseph charges his brothers, Genesis 46:34, that they shall say to Pharaoh, that they are shepherds, in order that they may obtain a residence apart from the Egyptians in the land of Goshen. “For,” adds the author, “every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians.” The monuments even now furnish abundant evidence of this hatred of the Egyptians to shepherds. The artists of Upper and Lower Egypt vie with each other in caricaturing them.^[179] In proportion as the cultivation of the land was the more unconditionally the foundation of the Egyptian State, the idea of coarseness and barbarism was united with the idea of a shepherd among the Egyptians.^{[180] [179]} Wilk. II. p. 16.

[180] Concerning the causes of this hatred of the Egyptians, see especially Rosellini, I. 1. p. 178 seq., also Heeren, S. 149. The region in which the Israelites received their residence, the land of Goshen, is designated, Genesis 47:6; Genesis 47:11, as the best of the land. This statement has occasioned interpreters some perplexity, but it is justified by what Wilkinson, without reference to this passage, says of the nature of this eastern district: “It may not be irrelevant to observe, that no soil is better suited to many kinds of produce than the irrigated edge of the desert, (it is generally composed of lime mingled with sand,) even before it is covered by the fertilizing deposit of the inundation.”^{[181] [181]} Wilk. I. p. 222.

Since the reference of the Pentateuch to the geographical relations of Egypt are most numerous in the chapters now under consideration, it will appear proper that we make them the subject of a connected examination in this place. The bearing and importance of these separate notices can be correctly understood only when thus seen in connection.

References of the Pentateuch to the Geographical Features of Egypt. The Land of Goshen. The references of the Pentateuch to the geographical features of Egypt, as we should naturally expect in a book of sacred history, are neither numerous nor particular; yet enough of these references exist to show that its author possessed an accurate knowledge of the topography of the country to which he alludes. And the more scattered, incidental, and undesigned these notices are, the more certain is the proof which they afford, that the author’s knowledge was of no secondary character, was not laboriously produced for the occasion, but, on the contrary, natural, acquired from his own personal observation, and was such as to preserve him from every mistake, without the necessity of his being constantly on his guard.

Let us direct our attention n, first, to what the author says ofthe land of Goshen.He nowhere gives a direct and minute account of the situation of this land. But it is evident that this must be referred to some other cause than his ignorance, since ho communicates, in reference to it, a great number of separate circumstances, which, although some of them appear at first view to be entirely at variance with each other, are yet found to be entirely consistent when applied to a particular district. The land of Goshen appears,on the one hand,as the eastern border-land of Egypt. Thus it is said,Genesis 46:28: “And he [Jacob] sent Judah before him unto Joseph, to direct his face unto Goshen.” That Jacob should send Judah before him, to receive from Joseph the necessary orders for the reception of those entering the country, is entirely in accordance with the regulations of a well-organized kingdom, whose borders a wandering tribe is not permitted to pass unceremoniously. This account also agrees accurately with the information furnished on this point by the Egyptian monuments.^[182]That Jacob did not obtain the orders of Joseph until he was at Goshen, shows that this was the borderland. We come to the same result also fromGenesis 47:1: “And Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father and my brethren are come out of the land of Canaan, and behold they are in the land of Goshen.” It is most natural that they should remain in the border-province until the matter was laid before the king. This is also confirmed byGenesis 46:34: “And ye shall say, Thy servants’ trade hath been about cattle—from our youth even until now—that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians;” for this passage can only be explained on the supposition that Goshen is a frontier province, which could be assigned to the Israelites without placing them in close contact with the Egyptians, who hated their manner of life.^[183]Finally, the circumstance, that the Israelites under Moses, after they had assembled at the principal town of the land, had reached in two days the confines of the Arabian desert, points to Goshen as the eastern boundary.

[182] See remarks upon Genesis 46 p. 39 seq.

[183] The Israelites received the land of Goshen in military tenure, being bound to guard the exposed north-eastern frontier. On theother hand,Goshen appears again as lying in the neighbourhood of the chief city of Egypt. Thus inGenesis 45:10: “And thou shalt dwell in the land of Goshen, and thou shalt be near to me,” (to Joseph who dwelt in the principal city of Egypt).^[184]The Pentateuch nowhere expressly mentions which was this chief city of Egypt, just as the surname of no one of the reigning Pharaohs is mentioned by Moses, and for the same reason. Yet the necessary data for designating this city are found. It must at any rate have been situated in Lower Egypt, for this appears in the Pentateuch generally as the seat of the Egyptian king. But the remarkable passage,Numbers 13:23: “And Hebron was built seven years before Zoan of Egypt,” points us directly to Zoan or Tanis, and at the same time plainly shows that the reason why the author did not mention the chief city by name, can be sought in anything rather than in his ignorance concerning it. That Zoan is here directly named by way of comparison, implies, first, that it was one of the oldest cities in Egypt.^[185]Secondly, that it held the first rank among the Egyptian cities, and stood in the most important connection with the Israelites. Hobron, the city of the patriarchs, could be made more conspicuous only by a comparison with the chief city of Egypt, arrogant and proud of its antiquity, and there was no motive for such a comparison, except with a city which by its arrogance had excited the jealousy of the Israelites. The designation, Zoan of Egypt, which means no more than that the city lay in Egypt, also indicates that this was the chief city. What is here only intimated is expressly affirmed inPsalms 78:12;Psalms 78:43; where it is said, Moses performed his wonders “in the field of Zoan.” In accordance with the foregoing intimations, which bring us into the neighbourhood of the chief city, Moses is exposed on the bank of the Nile,Exodus 2:3, and at the place where the king’s daughter was accustomed to bathe,Exodus 2:5, and the mother of the child lived in the immediate vicinity,Exodus 2:8. They had fish in abundance,Numbers 11:5; they watered their land as a garden of herbs,Deuteronomy 11:10.

[184] So also in chap. 46:28, 29.

[185] That Tanis already existed in the time of Remeses the Great, appears from the monuments yet existing among its ruins. Wilk. Vol. I. p. 6. Rosellini, I. 2. p. 68.

Further, the land of Goshen, on the one hand, is described as apasture-ground.So in the passage above referred to,Genesis 46:34, and also inGenesis 47:4: “They said, moreover, unto Pharaoh, To sojourn in the land are we come; for thy servants have no pasture for their flocks; for the famine is sore in the land of Canaan; now therefore, we pray thee, let thy servants dwell in the land of Goshen.” On the other hand, the land of Goshen appears as one of the mostfruitfulregions of Egypt,Genesis 47:6: “In the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell.” Also in verse 11 of the same chap.: “And he gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses.” The Israelites employed themselves in agriculture,Deuteronomy 11:10, and obtained in rich abundance,Numbers 11:5, the products which Egypt, fertilized by the Nile, afforded its inhabitants.

All these circumstances harmonize, and the different points, discrepant as they may seem, find their application, when we fix upon the land of Goshen as the region east of the Tanitic arm of the Nile^[186]as far as the Isthmus of Suez or the border of the Arabian desert,Exodus 13:20. Goshen then comprised a tract of country very various in its nature. A great part of it was a barren land, suitable only for the pasturage of cattle. Yet it also had very fruitful districts, so that it combined in itself the peculiarities of Arabia and Egypt. To it belonged a part of the land on the eastern shore of the Tanitic branch of the Nile;^[187]also the whole of the Pelusiac branch with both its banks, which as late as in the time of Alexander the Great was navigable—through it his fleet pressed into Egypt,—but is now almost entirely filled up with the sand of the desert, while the Tanitic arm, being further removed from the desert, has sustained itself better.^[188]Between two branches of the Pelusiac canal lies the island Mycephoris, which in ancient times was inhabited by the Calasiries, or a part of the military caste. Of this islandRitter^[189]says: “At this present time it is a well cultivated plain, full of great palm-groves and opulent villages.” “Generally,” continues the same author, “the country here is by no means barren; the water of the canal diffuses its blessings everywhere. Thus there lies upon the canal, about fifteen miles below Bustah, the little modern village Heyeh, surrounded by rich palmgroves, which is almost entirely unknown to recent Geographers, but in its vicinity is a luxuriance of vegetation which makes the country appear like a European garden.”^[190]So is it even now with this region, notwithstanding the great bogs and sand heaps which have been here formed in the course of a hundred years.^[191]Even in the interior of the ancient land of Goshen, there is still a large tract of land good for tillage, and fruitful. There is, for example, a valley which stretches through the whole breadth of this province from west to east, and in which, as we shall hereafter see, the ancient chief city of this province lay. This tract of land, from the ancient Babastis on the Pelusiac arm of the Nile even to the entrance of the Wady Tumilat, is, according toLe Père^[192]even now under full cultivation, and is annually overflowed by the Nile. Also a great part of Wady Tumilat is susceptible of cultivation,^[193]and likewise the eastern part of the valley, which is very accurately delineated upon the chart of Lower Egypt in the Atlas ofRitter’sGeography, the tract from Eas el Wady to Serapeum, furnishes not merely pasture grounds, but also land suitable for cultivation.^[194]

^[186] The view of our author with regard to the position of the land of Goshen agrees, substantially, with that ofDr Robinsonand other scholars of the present day. “This tract,” it is said, in the Biblical Researches, Vol. I. p. 76, “is comprehended in the modern province esh-Shŭrkîyeh, which extends from the neighbourhood of Abu Za’bel to the sea, and from the desert to the former Tanaitic branch of the Nile; thus including also the valley of the ancient canal.”

[187] On which see Ritter also, Afrika, S. 827.

[188] See Malus, Memoire sur l’état ancien et moderne des provinces Orientates de la basse Egypte, Descr. 18. 2. p. 18.

[189] S. 824.

[190] Comp.Deuteronomy 11:10, “as a garden of herbs.”

[191] Ritter, S. 834. Prokesch, (In den Erinnerungen aus Aegypten und Kleinasien, Th. 2. S. 130,) says: “There is no country that cannot better dispense with the arts of civilized life, than Egypt. By them it can be made a paradise, and without them a desert. During the century of modern Greek, Arabian, Mameluke and Turkish dominion, when, with the exception of some short intervals, nothing was done for the country, the inhabitants lived upon the inheritance which descended from the flourishing century under the Pharaohs, Ptolemies, and Romans. It is no merit to them that desert and morass have not swallowed up all of their arable land. The canals and dykes existed and still exist on such a foundation, and in so great numbers, that a thousand years would not be sufficient to make of Egypt what the country between the cataracts is at this day. The tillable land of Egypt has by degrees decreased in quantity, as the public works of the ancients have gradually crumbled, until half its extent has gone, but the remainder is yet sufficient to furnish sustenance for a people proportionally less than formerly.”

[192] Memoire sur le canal des deux mers, in the Descr. t. 11. p. 110.

[193]Le Père, p. 117.

[194] Le Père, p. 121.

It is certain, that the Pentateuch in the intimations, evidently undesigned, which it gives of the position and nature of the land of Goshen in the most disconnected passages, is always consistent with itself, as, for example, in one whole series of passages, it alludes to the fact, that the Israelites dwelt upon the Nile, and in another, that they dwelt in a border-land in the direction of Arabia. This fact, as also the circumstance that all its allusions to the position and nature of the land are substantiated by actual geography without the most distant reference to an imaginary land, are not explicable, if the author was dependent on uncertain reports for his information. On the contrary, the whole serves to impress us with the conviction, that he, as would be the case with Moses, wrote from personal observation, with the freedom and confidence of one to whom the information communicated comes naturally and of its own accord, and from one who has not obtained it for a proposed object. The Location of Pharaoh’s Treasure-Cities, Pithom and Raamses.

We go further. InExodus 1:11, it is said: “And they built for Pharaoh treasure-cities, Pithom and Raamses.” There can be no doubt that in the view of the author, these cities, upon whose fortifications the Israelites were compelled to labour, were situated in the land of Goshen. It is most natural to suppose that the Israelites built where, according to the foregoing account, they dwelt; moreover, all doubt is precluded, since one of these cities, Raamses, is afterwards represented as the place of rendezvous from which the Israelites commenced their departure from the land. The question now is, whether these cities really lay in the land of Goshen, or did the author probably, out of the number of the names of Egyptian cities known to him, take two at random?

Before we answer these questions, we remark, that even the circumstance that the author represents the king of Egypt as building treasure-cities in the land of Goshen, is in favour of his knowledge of Egypt, or rather of his credibility as a historian. Nowhere are the treasure-cities more in place than precisely there. That they werefortified,even the Seventy understood, for they translate the Hebrew word here directly,walled cities.The same thing is evident from2 Chronicles 8:3-6, according to which they were placed in the particularly insecure borderland (Hamath), and are designated as “fenced cities, with walls and gates and bars.” Compare2 Chronicles 11:12, where the store-cities are spoken of in connection with castles. But that such walled cities, provided with stores of provisions, were nowhere more needed than on the eastern boundary of Egypt, is indeed evident from the circumstance, that according to the accounts of profane writers, just upon this border, the most exposed of all, the military power of the Egyptians was concentrated.” It is clear fromHerodotus,”saysHeeren,^[195]”that almost the whole military force of Egypt was stationed in Lower Egypt; four and a half districts within the Delta were possessed by the Hermotybies, and twelve others by the Calasiries. On the contrary, only one district was possessed by each of these in all Middle and Upper Egypt, namely the district of Chemmis and Thebes.” Of the land on the east side of the Tanitic arm of the Nile,Ritter^[196]says: “This is believed to be the land of the ancient Calasiries, who were here to guard the ancient ports of Egypt against eruptions from Asia.”^[197]

^[195] S. 37.

[196] The declarations of ancient writers with regard to the chief stations of the military caste in Egypt, are of no small importance respecting another passage of the Pentateuch. They show how appropriate it is, when the author, in Exodus 14, represents the Egyptian host as ready forthwith to pursue after the Israelites, and as able to overtake them in a short time. “In Mosaic times,” says Heeren, S. 37, “the military caste first make their appearance in Lower Egypt. The suddenness with which the Pharaoh who then ruled could assemble the army with which he pursued the Israelites in their Exodus, shows distinctly enough, that the Egyptian military caste must have had their head-quarters in just the same region in which Herodotus places them.”

[197] S. 829.

We will now endeavour to determine the position of the two cities named. With regard to the first, this can be determined without difficulty. It will be denied by no one, that it lay within the land of Goshen. Pithom is incontestably, and by universal admission, identical with the Patumos ofHerodotus.^[198]Speaking of the canal which connected the Nile with the Red Sea, this author says: “The water was admitted into it from the Nile. It began a little above the city Bubastis, near the Arabian city Patumos, but it discharged itself into the Red Sea.”^[199]According to this, Paturaos was situated on the east side of the Pelusiac arm of the Nile, not far from the entrance of the canal which unites the Nile with the Red Sea,^[200]in the Arabian part of Egypt.^[201]The ItinerariumAntoninifurnishes a further limitation. It can scarcely be doubted that the Thum which is mentioned is identical with Patumos and Pithom. TheΠis merely the Egyptian article.^[202]Now this Thum was twelve Roman miles distant from Heroöpolis,^[203]whose ruins are found in the region of the present Abu Keisheid. All these designations are appropriate, if with the scholars who accompanied the French Expedition we place Pithom on the site of the present Abbaseh, at the entrance of the Wady Tumilat, where there was at all times a strong military post.

[198] Book 2. c. 158.

[199]ʼΗκται δὲἀπὸτοῦΝείλου τὸὔδωρ ἐς αὐτὴν·ἠκται δὲκατύπερθε ὀλίγον Βουβάστιος πόλιος,παρὰΠάτουμον τὴν Ἀραβίην πόιν·ἐσέχει δὲἐς τὴν ἐρθρὴν θάλασσαν.

[200]If the passage from Herodotus is correctly understood, Patumos, situated near the beginning of the canal, cannot be identical with Heroopolis, as is erroneously asserted by some.

[201]Compare Bähr upon the passage: Arabiae dicitur urbs, quod omnes Aegypti urbes a Nilo Arabiam versus sitae hoc nomine vulgo afficiuntur. The Seventy translateגשֶׁןinGenesis 45:10, byΓεσὲμ Ἀαβιας, just as Herodotus calls Patumos an Arabian city.

[202] Champollion l’Egypte sous les Pharaons, t. 2. p. 58.

[203] Itin. Ant.

Larcher wishes arbitrarily to place a point after πόλιος, and reject the δέ after ἐσεχει. Lange follows his example. Bähr, on the contrary, says: Quidni enim Herodoto dicere licuit: ductum osse canalem paulo supra Bubastin urbem, juxta Patumon, Arabiae urbem (quam sc. urbem praeterfluat), ab ea autem haud procul in mare exire. But Bähr has not been able to entirely free himself from the error of Larcher. From his inclination towards it, comes the entirely arbitrary addition of, ab ea haud procul. Herodotus gives no such information as this: Patumos is situated near the place where the canal discharges itself into the Red Sea. According to him, Patumos lay rather, near the commencement of the canal: it began above Bubastis and near Patumos, and ended in the Red Sea.

Let us now seek to determine the location of Raamses. That the author supposed it lay in Goshen we have, in addition to the general reasons already referred to, a particular one. It is said inGenesis 47:11, “And Joseph gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land,^[204]in the land of Rameses.” The same land which is everywhere in the preceding and succeeding context called the land of Goshen, is here designated as the land of Rameses, or the land whose chief city is Rameses;^[205]andthis is entirely in accordance withExodus 12:37, andNumbers 33:3;Numbers 33:5, where Rameses, since the departure of the Israelites commences there, is clearly designated as a central point in the land of Goshen.

[204]“The land of Goshen,” saysDr Robinson,“was the best of the land; and such, too, the province esh-Shŭrkîyeh has ever been, down to the present time. In the remarkable Arabic document translated byDe Sacy,containing a valuation of all the provinces and villages of Egypt in the year 1376, the province of the Shŭrkîyeh comprises 383 towns and villages, and is valued at 1,411,875Dinars,—a larger sum than is put upon any other province, with one exception. During my stay in Cairo, I made many inquiries respecting this district; to which the uniform reply was, that it was considered the best province in Egypt.—This (its fertility) arises from the fact that it is intersected by canals, while the surface of the land is less elevated above the level of the Nile, than in other parts of Egypt; so that it is more easily irrigated. There are here more flocks and herds than anywhere else in Egypt; and also more fishermen.” Compare, with this last expression, p. 224 supra.

[205] “According to the common opinion, the so calledlandRameses in this passage is not the same as the city Raamses inExodus 1:11. But the reason which is relied upon in favour of this difference, (see for example Michaelis Supplem. p. 2256,) the dissimilarity of punctuation, (which is however very trifling,) is of little force. The Raamses inExodus 1:11., is evidently only the fuller sounding pause-form. But that also inGenesis 47:11., thecityRaamses is spoken of, is favoured by the following argument. In three passages of the Pentateuch besides Exodus 1, inExodus 12:37., andNumbers 33:3;Numbers 33:5,Raamses is undeniably the name of a city. (It is true that some have wished to make it even in these last two passages the name of a province; so has even v. Raumer, in the Exodus of the Israelites, S. 11. But it is perfectly clear that this cannot be. Let us look at the passages a little more minutely: “And the children of Israel removed from Rameses and pitched in Succoth, and they departed from Succoth and pitched in Etham.” If Succoth and Etham are names of a single district, not of an entire province, so must Rameses also be.) On the contrary, Rameses is found in no other passage as the name of a province. Accordingly then, the presumption is, that Rameses inGenesis 47:11, is the name of a city. If the author did not intend to be so understood, he ought to have explained himself more minutely. But Rameses cannot properly be the name of the province in Genesis 47, since this before and after is called Goshen. Rosellini is also of the opinion, I. 1. p. 300, that the Rameses in Genesis 47 is identical with the one in Exodus 1. The author of the book of Genesis, he supposes, intends to say that Joseph placed his father and his family in the region in which the city Raamses was afterwards built. It is improbable, even when we leaveExodus 1:11out of the account, (that this passage is not in favour of the previous nonexistence of Raamses, Michaelis has already remarked, Suppl. p. 2256,)that this city was already in existence in the time of Joseph. The name furnishes an argument against it. Raamses means: consecrated to the sun (see I. 1. p. 117,) and it is very common among the Egyptian kings, especially those of the Mosaic period. The city evidently derived its name from one of these kings. But according to ancient authors, and the monuments, the name Rameses was given to no one before the eleventh Pharaoh of the eighteenth dynasty, whose reign was considerably subsequent to the time of Joseph.

Now, with reference to the inquiry whether Raamses was really situated where the author of the Pentateuch places it, the proof which alone is sure, is furnished by the Alexandrian translation ofGenesis 46:28-29. While the original text names simply Goshen, the translator has in verse 28: “But Judah he sent before him to Joseph, that he might come to meet him at Heroöpolis in the land of Rameses,”(συναντῆσαι αὐτῷκαθ Ἡρώων πόλιν εἰς γῆν Ῥαμεσσῆ,)and inGenesis 46:29: “And Joseph prepared his chariot, and went up to meet Israel his father, at Heroöpolis,” (ἡρώων πόλιν.)It is certain that “at Heroöpolis in the land Rameses” is no arbitrary conceit of the Seventy. They took the designation “land Rameses” instead of Goshen fromGenesis 47:11, where the author himself substitutes, for Goshen, the land of Rameses. In the phrase “at Heroöpolis,” for the name Rameses, which had gone out of use, Heroöpolis, the current name in their time, was substituted. The city Raamses was to them the same as Heroöpolis, the land of Rameses therefore was situated in the vicinity of Heroöpolis.

This, which is as good as a direct declaration of the Seventy that Raamses is identical with Heroöpolis, seems of no small importance when we consider that the Greek name Heroöpolis, cannot be older than the time of the Greek dominion over Egypt, while the Alexandrian translation of the Pentateuch was made as early as the first period of this dominion; so that the earlier name of the city could scarcely be unknown to the translator. According toMannert^[206]indeed, the city is not supposed to have existed before the time of the Greek dominion, and accordingly had no earlier name. “It was,” he says very confidently, “a new Grecian city, built merely on account of the canal, and for the sake of trade. NeitherHerodotusnor any writer before the age of the Ptolemies was acquainted with it, hence its Greek name.” But even the name itself, as will directly appear, carries us back to remote antiquity; and what is most important, if it was entirely new, how could the Seventy have identified it with Heroöpolis?

[206] S. 576 der alten Geographie von Aegypten. The agreement of the two names indicates also that the Seventy have justly identified the Heroöpolis of their time with the ancient Raamses, just as in chap. 41:45, they have placed for the On of the original text, Heliopolis, the Greek name. That the city Raamses borrowed its appellation from one of the honoured rulers of that name, is not surely now doubted by any one; the etymology proposed byJablonski,which entirely leaves out of the account the connection between the city and the rulers of the same name, is wholly unworthy of notice. When we now see from the monuments how much the Egyptians employed the name Rameses, and what associations they connected with it, the Greek name Heroöpolis, city of Heroes, seems a very suitable translation of the ancient Egyptian name.

Now it is admitted by all the authorities respecting the location of Heroöpolis, that it was situated in the ancient land of Goshen. For our immediate object, therefore, we need not enter upon a more accurate determination of its position. Yet it is of so much importance for the geographical investigation concerning the Exodus of the Israelites, to which we shall next direct our attention, that, as a preparation for that, we must endeavour to settle more accurately its position. The ancient geographers until the time of the French expedition, following the [inaccurate] statements of several ancient writers, looked for Heroöpolis directly on the Arabian Gulf.^[207]Against the admission of this opinion, the following reasons are especially important. First,Heroöpolis, as we have already seen, is identical with the ancient Raamses. But this could not lie on the Arabian Gulf, since the Israelites did not arrive in the neighbourhood of the Arabian Gulf until the end of the second day’s march, which they commenced at Raamses. Secondly, The passage,Genesis 46:28-29, according to the Alexandrian version, is entirely inexplicable on the supposition that Heroöpolis was on the Red Sea. How could the Seventy then represent Joseph as going out to meet his father Jacob, in the neighbourhood of this city, which lay so far out of his course in coming from Canaan into Egypt? This reason is of great importance. The Alexandrian translator must necessarily have known the position ofHeroöpolis. His authority exceeds in importance that of the most accurate of the Greek Geographers. Thirdly, The statement in the ItinerariumAntonini,according to which Hero=Heroöpolislay between Thum=Patumos and Seraphim, about twelve Roman miles distant from each, is also entirely at variance with the older hypothesis.

[207]Mannert, S. 514, adhering to this view, still looks for Heroöpolis at the end of the canal which united the Nile with the Red Sea, between the Bitter Lakes and the northern point of the Arabian Gulf, since, he remarks, “all ancient writers who speak of this city, place it in the interior angle of the Arabian Gulf, not far from the city Arsinoe.” But Mannert is obliged to remark, first, S. 514, in reference to the considerable ruin of Saba Biyar: “I cannot give an explanation of it.” Secondly, S. 515, he concedes that the ruins ofhisHeroöpolis cannot be found. Thirdly, he remarks, S. 516, in reference to the passage of the Seventy, which we shall examine farther in the text: “Now it certainly is the most improbable explanation of all, which makes the city to have beensituated, not far to the south, but on the direct road which passes through Abu Keisheid. But the whole statement is a mere error of the translator; the Hebrew text knows nothing of Heroöpolis; Joseph came toGoshento meet his father.” As if anything were accomplished by this! Whether the Seventy translated correctly or not, is just the same. It is sufficient that they mention the city Heroöpolis in a connection in which a city on the Arabian Gulf cannot properly be placed. The correct position of Heroöpoliswas first determined by the scholars of the French Expedition, and the view in which the majority of them have united, has obtained almost universal assent. “The researches of the members of the Egyptian Commission,” saysChampollion,^[208]“have furnished the certain and acknowledged result that Heroöpolis lies between the Pelusiac arm of the Nile and the Bitter Lakes to the northwest of these lakes, at a place which is now called Abu Keisheid, from the Arab tribe which roves about on the Isthmus.”

[208] L’Egypte sous les Pharaons, t. 2. p. 89. The most accurate and vivid description of the situation of Heroöpolis is given byDu-Bois-Aymé,in his treatise “upon the ancient bounds of the Red Sea.”^[209]“The valley Seba-Biyar, called by the Arabs Wady, begins about twomyriametresfrom Belbeis. It runs from east to west. The Nile in its greatest rise sometimes reaches even to this place. Sweet water is always found here by digging from twelve to fifteendecimetresdeep. The soil is of the same nature and appearance with that directly on the Nile. But since the land is seldom overflowed, it has less depth of fertile soil deposited by the flood. It is not more than two decimetres deep. Under this lies a light clay, mingled with sand. The canal which conveys the water of the Nile thither runs to a distance of about one and a half myriametres to the declivity which incloses the valley on the north. This makes the conveyance of the water necessary for culture very easy for the inhabitants. But sometimes the Nile does not reach a height for several years sufficient to supply water for the canal: and then they make use of wells for irrigation. At the entrance of the valley lies the village Abbaseh,^[210]near which is a lake called by the Arabs Birket el-Fergeh, or Birket el-Haj el-Kadem. This last name, which signify the ancient Pilgrim’s pool, leads to the conjecture that in the earliest term of pilgrimage to Mecca, the great caravan which now passes by Adsherad, went through the valley Seba Biyar, in order to turn to the head of the gulf.—At twomyriametresfrom Abbaseh the canal is interrupted. There ends the Wady Tumilat. It takes this name from the Arab tribe Tumilat, who occupy this region. The valley Seba Biyar stretches yet twomyriametresfurther to the east; and in about the middle of this part of the valley there is an extensive heap of ruins which indicate the position of an ancient city; the Arabs name this place Abu Keisheid. Upon the point of a little hill which is formed by these ruins, there lies a great granite block, upon which in relievo are hewn out three Egyptian deities,” &c.^[211]Compare also upon the site of Heroöpolis at the place where are now the ruins of Abu Keisheid, upon the canal which connects the Nile with the Arahian Gulf, in the middle of the Wady,Le Pire,in his treatise on the canal of the two Seas.^{[212] [209]} Descr. 1.11. p. 376.

[210] The same, on whose site, as has been previously shown, the ancient Pithom or Patumos lay. The two fortified cities, named in connection with one another inExodus 1:11, were situated therefore in the same valley, and the fortifications which Pharaoh commanded to be built around both had probably the common object of obstructing the entrance into Egypt, which this valley furnished to the enemy from Asia. Pharaoh had so much the more occasion for the construction of these fortifications, since he believed that he had reason to fear, that the Israelites would readily make common cause with the enemies pressing in from this quarter. SeeExodus 1:10.

[211] In the Description, 1.11. p. 376.

[212] Descr. 1.11. p. 291, seq. The March of the Israelites From Raamses to the Red Sea.

Through the just determination of the position of Heroöpolis, and consequently of Raamses, the narrative of the departure of the Israelites has received an unexpected light, and the credibility of the Pentateuch a wonderful confirmation. On the second day after their departure, the Israelites came into the region about the northern point of the Arabian Gulf. Their first station was Succoth, the second Etham, whose position is designated inExodus 13:20, and inNumbers 33:6, by the words, “which lies at the end of the desert.” That by “ the desert” here, no other than the Arabian desert, beginning at the northern point of the Red Sea,^[213]can be meant, is evident from the following reasons: 1. Although the phrase “ the desert” is sometimes used with a more unrestricted reference, as for instance inExodus 14:3, where Pharaoh says, “They are entangled in the land, the desert hath shut them in,” and in verses Exodus 14:11and Exodus 14:12of the same chapter; so that the Egyptian part of the desert^[214]is also included, yet this is to be considered only as an exception to the general rule. “The desert” is generally the Arabian desert. 2. The phrase, “which lies at the edge of the desert,” was evidently designed to show that the Israelites had already arrived at the border of Egypt, when they reached Etham. The expression, “they encamped in Etham at the edge of the desert,” is followed in both places by the declaration, that the Israelites turned back, i.e. instead of crossing the boundary, they went again further into Egypt, as inNumbers 33:7: “And they removed from Etham, and turned back to Pi-hahiroth,” &c. But the words do not correspond to their evident design, unless by the desert the Arabian is specifically understood. 3. The passage,Numbers 33:8, is entirely decisive. Yet, in order to perceive its full force, it must be considered in connection with what goes before:Numbers 33:5, “And the children of Israel removed from Rameses, and pitched in Succoth.”Numbers 33:6, “And they departed from Succoth, and pitched in Etham, which is in the edge of the desert.”Numbers 33:7, “And they removed from Etham and returned to Pi-hahiroth, which lies before Baal-zephon, and pitched before Migdol.”Numbers 33:8, “And they departed from before Pi-hahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea to the desert, and went three days’ journey in the desert of Etham, and pitched in Marah.” According toNumbers 33:8, the part of the Arabian desert which lies on the eastern shore of the Arabian Gulf bore the name of the desert of Etham. How can this well be otherwise explained than by supposing that the place from which the desert takes its name lies at the north end of the Arabian Gulf, and consequently on the borders of the desert named from it? The sense is evidently this: At the end of the second day they had already arrived at the borders of the Arabian desert, at Etham, from which the tract of country lying next to Egypt receives the name, desert of Etham. But instead of advancing directly into the desert, they turned down again farther into Egypt to the Arabian Gulf. Afterwards, instead of goinground the sea, they proceeded through it unto the desert of Etham.

[213] Very correctly J. H. Michaelis says: nempe qua Aegyptum attingit.

[214] What Rüppell says (Reise, S. 209,) shows that the Eastern part of Egypt deserves this name, as well as Arabia Petraea. The west coast of the Gulf of Suez and its continuation to Cosseir, may be said to be without inhabitant, and the almost entire want of drinkable water along the coast of the sea is a cause sufficient to prevent settlements there. But it is specially important to compare the treatise “de la geographie comparée et de l’ancien état côtes de la mer rouge,” by Rozière, in t. 6 of the Descr. p. 267: The contrast with the adjoining region first arrests the attention when the traveller enters upon the Isthmus of Suez. As long as he is in Egypt, notwithstanding the heat of a scorching sun, he beholds a fresh plain, permeated by flowing water, shaded by palm trees, clothed with grass, flowers, or the golden harvest; a smiling and animated region, where everything reminds him of only abundance and fruitfulness. When he comes upon the Isthmus under the same sky, how great the change! There is no trace of cultivation or of inhabitant, no shade, no verdure, no flowing water, in a word, nothing which can sustain life. So as he proceeds farther, he seeks with anxiety some more fertile spot of ground in the distance, but the eye glances over the whole unending expanse of the horizon in vain; even to both seas, on every side is a dry, leafless land,barren rocks, glimmering sand, a plain bare everywhere. We find just the same contrast between Egypt and the desert inExodus 14:12: “Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the desert? Wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt? Is not this what we did tell thee in Egypt, Let us alone that we may serve the Egyptians; for it is better for us to serve the Egyptians, than to die in the wilderness.”

Supposing it now certain, that the Israelites at the end of the second day’s march had reached the northern point of the Arabian Gulf, we are then, according to the common hypothesis, that the Raamses from which the Israelites began their march lay in the region of Heliopolis, brought into no small difficulty. The distance is then far too great.^[215]It amounts from the Nile to the Red Sea to twenty-six hours, if we suppose, withSicardandvon Raumer^[216]that they passed through the valley of Wandering, and to as much, at least, if, withNiebuhr,they are allowed to have taken the common caravan route at the present day which leads from Cairo by Suez to Sinai.Niebuhr^[217]says: “We spent twenty-eight hours and forty minutes, deducting the time of resting, on our way from Birket el Haj (four hours from Cairo).” Evidently much too great a distance for so heavily laden a train as was that of the Israelites.

[215]“We were quite satisfied from our own observation, that they (the Israelites) could not have passed to the Red Sea from any point near Heliopolis or Cairo in three days, the longest interval which the language of the narrative allows. Both the distance and the want of water on all the routes, are fatal to such an hypothesis. We read, that there were six hundred thousand men of the Israelites above twenty years of age, who left Egypt on foot. There must of course have been as many women above twenty years old; and at least an equal number both of males and females under the same age; besides the ‘mixed multitude’ spoken of, and very much cattle. The whole number, therefore, probably amounted to two and a half millions, and certainly to not less than two millions. Now the usual day’s march of the best appointed armies, both in ancient and modern times, is not estimated higher than fourteen English or twelve geographical miles; and it cannot be supposed that the Israelites, encumbered with women and children and flocks, would be able to accomplish more. But the distance on all these routes being not less than sixty geographical miles, they could not well have travelled it in any case in less than five days.”—Bib. Res.,Vol. I. pp. 74, 75.

[216] See von Raumer, S. 11, and Ritter, S. 859.

[217] Besch reibung von Arabien, S. 408. But if we place Raamses^[218]on the site of the present Abu Keisheid, this difficulty entirely vanishes. The distance from this place to the Red Sea is about thirteen French leagues.^[219]This distance appears not too great,^[220]but just sufficient, if it is considered that the Israelites departed “in haste.”

[218] It may be proper to say here, that in this volume Remeses is spelt in three ways. When it is the name of a king, it is, on the authority ofWilkinson,Remeses. In the other two cases, the method of the verse in the Bible, to which allusion is made, is retained.

[219] See Le Père in the Description, 1.1. p. 84, who also on pages 74 seq. gives a description of the way from Abu Keisheid to Heroöpolis.

[220] “From thirty to thirty-five miles, which might easily have been passed over in three days.”—Bib. Res.,Vol. I. p. 80.

We remark further, that the opinion of the French scholars who look for Etham on the site of the present Bir Suweis, has much probability.^[221]This place is described byLe Père^[222]in the following manner: “The traveller comes finally out of the valley and reaches the plain of Suez. The city as well as the sea is in sight, and a gentle declivity leads down to Bir Suweis or the wells of Suez; these wells are only an hour from Suez.” Etham must have been situated somewhere in this region, on account of the designation, “which is at the edge of the desert.” WhatDu Bois Aymésays applies especially to Bir Suweis: “Sweet water is very scarce in this whole region, and the wells must determine the stations of the caravans.”

[221] See, for example, Du Bois-Aymé in a treatise: On the residence of the Hebrews in Egypt, Descr. t. 8. p. 113.

[222] P. 61.

“Between Migdol and the Sea.”

Finally also,Exodus 14:2deserves a discussion in our geographical section: “Speak to the children of Israel that they turn back and encamp before Pi-hahiroth between Migdol and the sea over against Baal-zephon, before it shall ye encamp by the sea.” Compare withNumbers 33:7: “And they removed from Etham and returned back to Pi-hahiroth which is before Baal-zephon, and they pitched before Migdol.” An insuperable difficulty appears to lie here in the phrases “between Migdol and the sea,” and “they pitched before Migdol.” Migdol is, doubtless, as even the Seventy perceived, identical with Magdolum. But this place lies, according to the declaration of the ItinerariumAntonini,only twelve Roman miles southward from Pelusium. The general correctness of this declaration is confirmed byExodus 29:10;Exodus 30:6, where in the words from “Migdol to Syene” these places are opposed to each other; Syene as being the mostsouthern border of Egypt, and Migdol the most northern, also by the passage inHerodotuswhere Magdolum, as the acknowledged border town of Egypt towards Palestine, is interchanged with Megiddo.^[223]If Migdol was so far distant from the place where the Israelites were encamped—nearly the whole breadth of the Isthmus of Suez lies between—how can it be said, that the Israelites “ encamped between Migdol and the sea,” and “pitched before Migdol?”

[223] 2. 159,ΚαὶΣύροισι πεζῇὁΝεκὼς συμβαλὼν ἐν Μαγδὸλῳἐνίκησε. The difficulty here is removed by the remark, that “between Migdol and the sea,” and “before Migdol,” do not serve for the geographical designation of the place where the Israelites were encamped, but rather call attention to the peril to which they exposed themselves by their foolish march. That Migdol was a fortress, the name itself shows, since it signifies tower or fortress. Probably the border garrison against Syria, which in later times was removed to the neighbouring Daphne, was stationed here.Herodotussays: “Under king Psamaticus guards were stationed at Elephantine against the Ethiopians, as in the Pelusiac Daphne against the Arabs and Syrians, and in Marea in like manner against Lybia. And even to this hour Persian guards are stationed at the very same places where they were under Psamaticus; for Persians are on guard at Elephantine, and also in Daphne.”^{[224] [224]} B. 2. chap. 30.

Upon the phrase “between Migdol and the sea “is founded the saying of Pharaoh, “The desert has shut them in.” They ought to have sought to free themselves as soon as possible from this unfortunate dilemma,—to go around the north end of the Arabian Gulf before the garrison marching out from Migdol could block up their way—and they had already nearly escaped. Then they thrust themselves, through an inexplicable misunderstanding, again into the midst of danger.

Thus also here, that which appears at first view to be opposed to the author’s knowledge of Egypt, is a proof of it, when more particularly examined.

History of Joseph, Continued.

Kings Priests, the Possessors of the Land in Egypt.

We proceed now, after finishing our inquiry concerning the references of the Pentateuch and to the geographical features of Egypt, in the explanation of the Egyptian allusions in this portion of sacred history, in the order of the chapters. We first turn our attention to Genesis 47:13-26.

Joseph, according to this account, purchased for Pharaoh of his subjects the right of possession to their land, so that the whole country henceforth belonged to Pharaoh. “Only the land of the Priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them; wherefore they sold not their lands,” verse Genesis 47:22. The land was divided out to its former possessors by lease; they were compelled to pay a fifth of its yearly produce. “And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt to this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part, except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh’s,” Genesis 47:26.

Among the accounts of profane writers which extend over this same ground, those of Herodotus and Diodorus are of particular importance. The first of these authors says: “The same king (Sesostris) had also divided the whole land among the Egyptians, they said, and had given to each one a square portion of equal extent, and in this way he obtained his income, for he collected from each individual a yearly rent. And when the flood took away something from the portion of one, he must come to the king and make a representation of the calamity. The king then sent some of his servants to examine it and measure how much less the land had become, that the tenant might pay from what remained in proportion to the whole amount of the imposed rent.”^[225] According to Diodorus,^[226] all the land in Egypt belonged either to the priests or the kings, or the military caste.

[225] B. 2. c. 109.

[226] 1. 73. An important point of agreement between the Biblical account and profane writers comes here directly into view. There is an entire accordance with regard to the prominent thing, namely, that the cultivators were not the possessors of the soil. Strabo^[227] also says that those who were employed in agriculture and trade held their land subject to rent. In the sculptures, as Wilkinson^[228] shows, only kings, priests and the military order are represented as land-owners. Contracts of sale lately discovered, according to which towns seem to have had their separate territories,^[229] belong to a very late condition of things, (a certain, although a limited right of possession will always arise in process of time from the condition of tenants,) and at most warrant only the assertion that the rule was not without exceptions.^[230] “We can affirm with certainty,” says Heeren,^[231]“that if not all, yet surely the greatest and best part of the land belonged to the king, the temples, the priests and the military order. It is further certain that these lands were cultivated by tenants, whose precise condition, whether they were fee-farmers or temporary occupants of the land, we do not know. Their condition may have been similar to that of the present Fellahs, who by no means have full ownership of land.^[232] But it cannot be doubted that the culture of the soil, if it was not entirely, yet was certainly for the most part performed by tenants. These therefore constituted the Egyptian peasantry,” etc.

[227] 17, p. 787.

[228] I. p. 263.

[229] Böckh Erklarung einer Aeg. Urkunde, S. 27.

[230] Anything further is not desired by Böckh. ThatHerodotusdoes not recognize any special cast of cultivators, he explains by the fact that the peasants were not land owners, and consequently could not constitute a special caste. He supposes that the kings, priests and soldiers all possessed real estate in the country, and a part of that in the towns, but that the inhabitants of towns in their very limited provinces also had possessions in land.

[231] S. 142.

[232] We will here quote what Girard says in the Description, t. 17, p. 189, “upon the right of possession in Egypt,” since it aids in the explanation of the meaning of our passage: Such is also the condition of that which they here call private possessions. They remain in the same family less by right of inheritance than as a testimony of the favor of the ruler, in whose hand it always remains to dispose of them according to his will. These possessions are, as it seems, only a kind of revertible and therefore entirely unalienable fief. We cannot here then with the expression, ‘sale of real estate,’ connect the idea of an invariable and absolute abdication, but merely that of a temporary mortgaging for a sum of money which is borrowed. The real estate will belong to the lender until the repayment of the money. Then the owner receives the avails of the land which he had abandoned. The narration in Genesis, and the consequent accurate acquaintance of the author with the condition of Egypt contended for by us, receive further confirmation from profane writers, since they attribute to the priests possessions in land as their own, and consequently rent free. “So much is certain,” remarks Heeren,^[233] “that a greater, perhaps the greatest and best part of the land was in the possession of the priests.”

[233] S. 131. But on the other hand, there are important apparent contradictions between our narrative and the accounts of profane writers:

1. Herodotus, it might be said, ascribes the partition of the land to king Sesostris; but he cannot possibly be the king in whose time the administration of Joseph falls. But, although Heeren^[234] seeks to sustain this statement of Herodotus, it must be considered as a fixed result of modern investigation, that Sesostris is not a historical but a mythic personage,^[235] to whom it was the custom to trace back all the important measures and the great successes of the ancient Pharaohs. And this Heeren himself has also more recently acknowledged.^[236]

^[234] S. 142.

[235] Bähr upon Her. IV. S. 563.

[236]Gött. Anz. 1834. S. 39.

If, further, Herodotas appears to know nothing of an original possession of the land by the Egyptian cultivators, but rather considers the king as the original possessor, the advantage is so decidedly on the side of the book of Genesis, that the contradiction of Herodotus confirms its credibility and places in a clearer light, the author’s knowledge of Egypt, which extends back far beyond the time approached by profane writers. The fact confirmed by Herodotus, that the king was possessor of the land occupied by the cultivators implies a historical fact through which it was brought about. That the king should be the original possessor of the whole land is not conceivable, and is contrary to the analogy of history, in a country like Egypt, not obtained by conquest

2. According to the representation in Genesis, there were only two classes of land-owners, the kings and the priests. Diodorus on the contrary, whose declaration is confirmed by the monuments, mentions three classes, kings, priests and the military caste. But Herodotus furnishes us with the data for reconciling this apparent contradiction. According to him the real estate of the military order differed from that of the peasants, since it was free of rent; but otherwise belonged to the kings, and was given by them in fee to the soldiery. According to book 2. chap. 141, the land of the military order was given to them by the kings, and taken away by one of the same, named Sethon. That this land was instead of pay is said in chap. 168: “They alone, of all the Egyptians except the priests, had the following special privilege, namely: each one had twelve acres of good land, free of rent.”

3. It appears from the account in Genesis, Genesis 47:22, that the priests received their support from the king. On the contrary, Herodotus^[237] says, as, at least, it is affirmed by Heeren,^[238] whom most in modern times, as for example Drumann,^[239]Rosenmueller^[240] and Bähr^[241] follow: The support of the priests is obtained from the revenues of the land belonging to the temples, from the temple-treasures.

[237] 2. c. 37.

[238] S. 132.

[239] Ueber die Inschrift zu Rosette, S. 158.

[240] Alt. u. Neu. Morgen. 1. S. 222.

[241] Zu Herod. B. 2. c. 37. This contradiction would disappear of itself, if we could with v. Bohlen^[242] translate verse Genesis 47:22 differently from what we have done above: “Only the land of the priests he did not purchase, for that is a legacy to the priests on the part of Pharaoh, and they enjoyed their privilege which Pharaoh gave to them, therefore they sold not their land.” According to this interpretation there is indeed no account in this passage of the daily portion which the priests received from the king. The reason that Pharaoh did not purchase the grounds of the priests, is this: they were already themselves crown-lands. But we could not well avail ourselves of this advantage. In the place of the contradiction removed, a new one would immediately arise. In opposition to other declarations, and to the whole situation of the Egyptian priests, all possessions in land, properly so called, would be denied them in this passage.

[242] S. 60.

Moreover this explanation is wholly inadmissible.^[243] According to sound interpretation, the passage can mean only as follows: only the land of the priests he did not purchase; for the cause, which compelled the remaining Egyptians to sell their land, did not affect them, since they received an allowance from Pharaoh, so that, so long as he had bread, they also had it.

[243]The Hebrew wordחֹקis also used to designate an allowance of food inProverbs 30:8;Proverbs 31:15. The word that is arbitrarily inserted by v. Bohlen. The phrase, “the land of the priests,” when compared with verse 20, can mean only the land which belongs to the priests as their own property, and also the expression “except the land of the priests alone, became not Pharaoh’s,” in verse 26, shows that the land of the priests was in the fullest sense their own. After comparing the wordsאָכְלוּאֶת־חֻקָםwith verse 18 seq., according to which the Egyptians sold their land in order to procure food, no one will interpret them by “they enjoyed their privilege.” Finally, it cannot, from the nature of the case, be supposed, that the same author who makes the Egyptian peasants land-owners, will deny to the priests all such possessions. But the contradiction may be removed in another way, and become perfect agreement. In the passage of Herodotus^[244] especially relied on, the meaning is not what it has been affirmed to be. It is there said: “And yet many thousand other usages, I might say, must they observe. But for this there is also much favor shown them. For neither their means of support nor their other expenses are derived from their own wealth. But they have their holy bread baked, and each one receives a great quantity of goose and neat’s flesh every day; wine is also given them.” The distinction is not here between the “common treasures” and “private wealth” of the priests, but between their own property and that which they receive in common with others out of the public treasures, from the king. It is precisely the distinction between the wealth of the priests existing in lands, and their salary made up of natural productions, which appears in Genesis; so that this passage of Herodotus, very far from contradicting our representation, serves rather as a strong confirmation of it. The phrase, “For neither their means of support nor other expenses are derived from their own wealth,”^[245] then leads decidedly to this conclusion. For, since in what precedes the passage quoted, individual priests are not spoken of, but priests in general, so it is entirely arbitrary to understand by “their own wealth” the private property of individuals. The wealth of the priesthood, in distinction from the allowance which was given them as a reward for their service can alone then be designated here. This declaration: “There is much favor shown them,” (lit. they suffer much good),^[246] contributes further to this argument. For, since the party receiving, the suffering subjects are the priests in general, the activity must come from some other source than from themselves. Just so this: “There is to them,” “there is given them.” But did there any doubt remain with regard to the correctness of the foregoing explanation, it would be cleared away by the explanation of Herodotus himself in another place. He says,^[247] The soldiers alone besides the priests receive a salary from the king. Now, since the land of the priests was their own property, their salary could consist only of the portion which was given them.

[244]2. 37.

[245]Οὔτε τι γὰρ τῶν οικηΐω τρίβουσι οὔτε δαπανέωνται.

[246]Πάσχουσι δὲκαὶἀγαθὰοὐκ ὀλίγα.

[247] 2. chap. 168. But other accounts also show that the priests received their support from the king. “The thirty judges,” says Drumann,^[248] “priests of Heliopolis, Thebes and Memphis were maintained by the king,^[249] and, without doubt, the sons of the priests also, all of whom over twenty years of age were given to the king as servants, or more correctly to take the oversight of his affairs.^[250] As a general rule, every one in the immediate service of the court is maintained by the king; for example, the two thousand soldiers who alternating yearly, formed the body guard of the king.”^[251] The ministers of court were in Egypt the priests, just as the State was a theocracy, and the king was considered as the representative and incarnation of the Godhead.

[248] S. 159.

[249] Diodorus 1. 75.Συντάξεις δὲτῶν ἀναγκαίων παρὰτοῦβασιλέως τοῖς μὲν δικασταῖς ἱκαναὶπρὸς διατροφήν ἐκορηγοῦντο·τῷδὲἀρχιδικαστῇπολλαπλάσιοι.

[250] Diod. 1. 70.

[251] Herod. 2. 168.

Diodorus says indeed that the whole maintenance of the priests, as also the expenses for the offerings, etc., were derived from the revenues of the lands. But this is true, at any rate, only of later times, when the priesthood had lost much of their income and of the respect previously shown them.^{[252] [252]} Drumann, S. 159 ff.

We have hitherto shown that the author exhibits in the narrative which we are considering the most accurate knowledge of the condition of Egypt—such a knowledge as Moses may more easily be supposed to possess than any other one. But we cannot stop here. We must also show that the Egyptian usages here referred to were the groundwork of those of the Israelites under discussion in the Pentateuch, and that a copying of them can only be accounted for when the legislation attributed to Moses truly proceeded from him, since it was natural that he and no law-giver of more modern times should have regard to the Egyptian institutions in forming his laws. We will here quote what has been already said in another place^[253] upon this point. “Michaelis^[254] indeed finds a reference in the two tenths in Genesis 47 to an Egyptian law. ‘In Egypt,’ he says, ‘the lands all belonged to the king, and the husbandmen were not the proprietors of the fields which they cultivated, but farmers or tenants who were obliged to give to the king one fifth of their produce. Genesis 47:20-25. Just so Moses represents God, who honored the Israelites by calling himself their king, the sole possessor of the soil of the promised land, in which he was about to place them by his special providence; but the Israelites were mere tenants, who could not alienate their land for ever.^[255] In fact, they were obliged to give God, as also the Egyptians Pharaoh two tenths,’ etc. Indeed the copiousness of the account must awaken the supposition of some design, and if we compare Leviticus 25, it can scarcely be doubted that the representation of the relation in which Egypt stands to its visible king is applied to the relation of Israel to its invisible king, the king who is also God.” As Pharaoh, we also add, furnished support for the priests out of the fifth which he received, so also did Jehovah.

[253] Th. III. der Beiträge zur Einl. ins Alt. T. S. 411, 412.

[254] Mos. Laws, vol. I. § 73.

[255]Leviticus 25:23. Compare verses 42 and 55.

Embalming,^[256]Lamentation for the Dead, &tc.

[256]Additional information upon the topics discussed in this section may be found inWilkinson,Vol. II. Sec. Ser. p. 451 seq. and 402 seq., with which compareLane’sMod. Eg. pp. 285—311. In Genesis 50:2-3 it is said: “And Joseph commanded his servants the physicians to embalm his father, and the physicians embalmed Israel. And forty days were fulfilled for him; for so are fulfilled the days of those who are embalmed, and the Egyptians m ourned for him seventy days.” This passage gives occasion for the following remarks: 1. The phrase, “Joseph commanded his servants, the physicians,” is not to be understood to mean that all the physicians of Joseph took part in this operation. The command was rather obeyed by those among the physicians of Joseph to whom this business belonged. It is remarkable that we find among the domestics of Joseph a large number of physicians. Even Warburton has compared with this account what Herodotus^[257] says of the healing art among the Egyptians: “the medical practice is divided among them as follows: each physician is for one kind of sickness, and no more, and all places are crowded with physicians; for there are physicians for the eyes, physicians for the head, physicians for the teeth, physicians for the stomach and for internal disease.” Therefore, remarks Warburton, it ought not to appear strange that Joseph had a considerable number of family physicians. “Every great family, as well as every city must needs, as Herodotus expresses it, swarm with the faculty. A multitude of these domestics would now appear an extravagant piece of state even in a first minister. But then we see it could not be otherwise, where each distemper had its proper physician.”^[258] The medical men of Egypt were renowned in ancient times. Cyrus had a physician sent him from Egypt,^[259] and Darius always had Egyptian physicians with him.^[260]

^[257] 2. 84.

[258] Warburton’s Divine Legation, Book IV. 3. 83.

[259]Herod. 3. 1.

[260]Ibid. 3. 129.

2. That the custom of embalming was very ancient in Egypt, is shown from the practice of cutting the bodies with an Ethiopian stone.^[261] Some mummies also bear the date of the oldest kings.^{[262] [261]} Herod. 2. 86. Diod. 1. 91.

[262] Rosellini, II. 3. p. 306.

3. The embalming is here performed by the servants of Joseph, the physicians. According to the accounts of classical authors on the contrary, the embalmers were a hereditary and organized class of men in Egypt, in which different duties were assigned to different persons. According to Diodorus the Taricheuta were the most distinguished among them.^[263] If a proper distinction of time is observed, there is no contradiction here. It is entirely natural to suppose that in the most ancient times this operation was performed by those to whom each one committed it. But afterwards, when the embalming was executed more according to the rules of art, a distinct class of operators gradually arose.

[263] Rosenm. Alterthumsk. II. 3. S, 352 ff. Upon this difference Zoega remarks, De Obeliseis, p. 263: At that time the college of Taricheuta seems not to have been formed, but embalming was performed by slaves.

4. The embalming continued, according to the declaration of the author, forty days, the whole mourning seventy days, in which the forty days of the embalming are evidently included. The account of Diodorus agrees in a remarkable manner with this. With reference to embalming he says, “They prepare the body first with cedar oil and various other substances, more than thirty (according to another reading, forty) days; then, after they have added myrrh and cinnamon and other drugs which have not only the power of preserving the body for a long time, but of imparting to it a pleasant odor, they commit it to the relatives of the deceased.”^[264] Of the mourning the same author says: “When a king died, all the Egyptians raised a general lamentation, tore their garments, closed the temples, offered no sacrifices, celebrated no festivals, for seventy-two days.”^[265]Herodotus.^[266] in opposition to both these accounts, seems to limit the time of retaining the body in natron alone to seventy days. But if the passage referred to is more closely examined it shows that he limited the whole time in which the body was under the embalmers to seventy days. Since this time began with the death and ended with the burial, while the mourning began and ended at the same time, there is the most perfect agreement between this passage of Herodotus and ours, which limits the time of lamentation to seventy days.^[267]

^[264] 1. 91.

[265] 1. 72.

[266] 2. 86.

[267] Herodotus says:ταῦτα δὲποιήσαντες,παριχεύουσι λίτρῳ,κρύψαντες ἡμέρας ἑβδομήκοντα·πλεῦνας δὲτουτέων οὐκ ἔξεστι ταριχεύειν. That these seventy days of Herodotus have reference not merely to the time of retaining the body in natron, but to the whole time of the embalming and mourning, has been asserted by some who are by no means guided by a respect for the Mosaic account, as for example, by Zoega, De Obeliscis, p. 253, and by Heyne, Spicilegium antiquitatis mumiarum, in Commentt. Götting. III. p. 85. The time is not only too long for retaining the body in natron, but it is also improbable that Herodotus would give the time of salting ,which was so far from being the prominent thing that Diodorus does not mention it at all, and not that of embalming and of the whole operation. Besides, seventy, as a round and sacred number, is much more suitable for the whole than a single, proportionally unimportant part, which under the embalming in its restricted sense, of which alone the Pentateuch makes mention, (theהָכֻטmeans according to the Arabic, bonis odoribus condivit mortuum, and consequently designates the operation of which Diodorus speaks,) held so inferior a place. But Creuzer, to whom Bähr accedes, has attempted to prove that the explanation which is most in accordance with the facts in the case, is inconsistent with the words. “Ego si quaeris,” he says in Comment. upon Herodotus, p. 45, “vereor ut hae explicationes conciliari queunt cum verbis Herodoti, qui quidem h. l. diserte dicitπαριχεύουσι λίτρῳ, quod posterius vocabulum cogitando videtur repeti debere cum ad sequensκρύψαντες, tum adταριχεύειν, ita utταριχεύεινh. 1. proprie salitionem videatur significare.” According to Creuzer therefore we must translate: “When this is done, they lay it in natron and leave it therein 70 days, but they are not allowed to salt it longer.” But this interpretation is not admissible, much less then necessary. Withκρύψαντες,λίτρῳcannot be implied, for the dead body was not put into the natron, but that was applied to it.Ταριχεύεινwithoutλίτρῳcan the more appropriately be taken in a general sense, since it is always so used in what precedes and follows. Compare c. 85:οὐτω ἐς τὴν ταρίχευσιν κομίζουσι, c. 86:ὦδε τὰσπουδαιότατα ταριχεύουσι, c. 89:τὰς δὲγυναῖκας τῶν ἐπιφανέων ἀνδρῶν,ἐπεὰν τελευτήσωσι,ου παραυτίκα διδοῦσι ταριχεύειν,—οὐτω παραδιδοῦσι τοῖς ταριχεύουσι. Compare upon the meaning ofταριχεύειν, primarily to salt and then to embalm in general, Creuzer p. 10 seq.; Heyne p. 81. We must translate: “When this is done, they embalm it in natron, having concealed it (in all) 70 days; but it is not permitted to embalm it longer.” The expression “having concealed it 70 days” refers to the whole time in which the dead body was removed from the view of the relatives, and was under the operation of the embalmers. The phrase “They are not allowedto embalm it longer” is explained by the remark, that to theταριχεύσιςthe treatment with natron also belonged, which began after the embalming in its more limited sense was at an end, and continued until the burial, or to the end of the mourning.

5. The Egyptians mourned for Jacob according to the above passage, seventy days. In Genesis 50:4 it is said: “And when the days of his mourning were past,” etc. In verses Genesis 50:10 and Genesis 50:11 : “And they came to the threshing floor of Atad, which is beyond Jordan and mourned there with a great and very sore lamentation; and he made a mourning for his father seven days, and the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, saw the mourning in the floor of Atad and said, “This is a grievous mourning to the Egyptians; wherefore the name of it was called Abel Mizraim (mourning of Egypt).” The classical writers also show that the Egyptians appointed for themselves a very solemn mourning for the dead, especially for those of high rank. Herodotus^[268] says: “Lamentations and funerals were celebrated. When a man died in a house, that is, one of rank, all the females of his family covering their faces with mud, and leaving the body in the house ran through the streets, girded up, and striking their bare breasts and uttering loud lamentations. AH their female relations joined them. The men beat their breasts in like manner and also girded up their dress.” Diodorus^[269]says: If any one dies among them, all his relatives and friends cover their heads with mud and go about the streets with loud lamentations, until the body is buried. In the meantime they neither use baths nor even take wine, or any other than common food; they also do not put on beautiful garments.” The same author gives an account of the lamentation of the Egyptians on the death of a king. Men and women to the number of 200 or 300 went around in companies, sung twice every day the funeral dirge, honored him with eulogies, and repeated the virtues of the dead. In the meantime they neither tasted meat or wheaten bread, and abstained from wine and every species of sumptuousness. No one used the bath or ointments or a soft bed, but every one was full of the deepest sorrow, as if a beloved child had died, and spent the prescribed time in sorrow. Meanwhile everything which pertained to the burial was made ready, and on the last day they placed the coffin which contained the body before the entrance of the tomb,” etc.^[270] The monuments^[271] also show how violent and solemn the lamentation was among the Egyptians. Many of the ceremonies of mourning have been transmitted even to the modern Egyptians.^{[272] [268]} B. 2. c. 85.

[269] B. 1. c. 91.

[270] Diod. B. 1. c. 72. 

[271] See the Representation of a mourning scene, from Thebes, in Wilkinson Vol. I. p. 286.

[272] Heyne p. 81, and De Chabrol, Essai s. les moeurs des habitans modernes de l’Egypt. Descr. t. 18. p. 180. In Genesis 50:4, we read: “And when the days of his mourning (the mourning for Israel) were past, Joseph spake unto the house of Pharaoh, saying, “If now I have found grace in your eyes, speak, I pray you, in the ears of Pharaoh,” etc. It is worthy of remark here, that Joseph makes not his request directly to the king, but has recourse to the house of Pharaoh, while at other times he goes directly to Pharaoh; and even his brothers and his father were brought before Pharaoh, so that the fact cannot be explained on the ground of the hatred of the Egyptians to strangers. The correct explanation is as follows: It belongs to the Egyptian sense of propriety to go with shorn head and beard, and only so is it allowed to appear before the king. Compare Genesis 41:14, where Joseph shaved himself and changed his garments before he went to Pharaoh, and the remarks upon that passage above.^[273] But while mourning they were not permitted to shave. Herodotus^[274] says: “Among other nations it is the custom in mourning for the relatives to shear the head, but the Egyptians, when an individual dies, leave the hair which was before cut off, to grow both upon the head and chin.” Such peculiar customs are especially suited to fix the opinion with regard to the relation of the Pentateuch to Egypt.

[273]p. 30.

[274] B. 2. c. 36. In Genesis 50:7 and Genesis 50:8 it is said: “And Joseph went up to bring his father; and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of the house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt. And all the house of Joseph and his brethren,” etc. “The custom of funeral trains,” says Rosellini,^[275] “was peculiar to all periods, and to all the provinces of Egypt. We see the representations of funeral processions in the oldest tombs at Eilethyas, and similar ones are delineated in those of Saqqarah and Gizeh; we also find others of a like nature in the Theban tombs, which belong to the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth dynasties,” When we behold the representations of the processions for the dead upon the monuments, we seem to see the funeral train of Jacob.^[276] The distinction between the elders of the house of Pharaoh, his court-officers, and the elders of the land of Egypt, the state-officers, is also worthy of notice. According to other accounts the court of the Egyptian king was made up of the sons of the most distinguished priests; those called Nomarchs and Toparchs by the Greeks belonged to the state-officers.^{[277] [275]} II. 3. p. 395.

[276] See in Taylor, p. 182.

[277] Heeren, Ideen S. 337 ff. In Genesis 50:26 it is said, “And Joseph died,—and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.” Compare with this what Herodotus^[278] says: “Now the relatives take away the body and make a wooden image in the shape of a man and place the body in it. When it is thus inclosed, they placed it in the apartment for the dead. setting it upright against the wall.” A doubt with regard to the Egyptian knowledge of the author might be awakened by the fact that he permits Joseph to be placed in a wooden sarcophagus,^[279] while one of stone would be expected. But a closer examination shows that this expression is directly in favor of the credibility of the pentateuch; coffins made of wood in Egypt, as indeed the passage already quoted from Herodotus shows, were the common ones, and those of basalt a rare exception;^[280]and in the case of Joseph, his order that the children of Israel should at a future time carry his bones with them to Canaan, furnishes a separate reason for giving the preference to wood rather than stone. Besides the custom of putting the dead in sarcophagi was by no means a general one, only rich and distinguished persons received this honor. Compare Heyne^[281] and notice that the Egyptian knowledge of the author appears here, since he permits Joseph to be a sharer in this honor that belongs to those who are highly esteemed.

[278]B. 2. 86.

[279] The Hebrew wordאָרוֹןdesignates suchaone. Plutarch employs the entirely synonymous wordλύρναξthe same thing to designate. See Zoega de Obeliscis p. 330.

[280] “Sarcophagi,” says Heyne p. 86, “e basalte rarissimiet ditissimorum fere; plerique e sycamoro, (compare upon the Sycamore wood as the common material of coffins for the dead, Creuzer Comm., Herod. p 61,) ad formam corporis facti, ex uno caudice dimidiato, ut alteia pars pro capuli fundo, altera pro tegumine sit; alii e pluribus asseribus coassati.” Compare upon the quality of coffins for the dead, Rosellini II. 3. p. 344. But the most copious collections upon wood as the very common material of the Egpytian sarcophagi are found in Zoega, p. 317; latissime autem patere videmus consuetudinem mortuos includere in arcas oblongas cadaveris staturae accommodatas, et sic sub terrain condere, aut in sepulcro reponere super solo exstructo, aut vero basi suffultas collocare sub divo. Ligni ad hoc usus frequentissimus; eoque Aegyptii ut plurimum contenti fuisse videntur, dum et sycomorus arbor, ejus regionis incola, materiem praeberet diuturnae durationis, et loca ubi condere solebant cadaveia ab aëre atque humore ita essent praeclusa, ut quodvis lignum in iis perdurare potuisse videatur. Ideoque non alias quam ligneas arcas commemorat Herodotus. The same author says, p. 333: Intelligimus et hinc in magno honore apud Aegyptios fuisse arcas ligneas cum arte factas et pulcre exornatas dum ipsum Osiridem hujusmodi conditorio delusum et captum inque eo sepultum traderent; quare et regum cadavera ligneo loculo intra lapideum inclusa fuisse conjicio. The coffin of king Mycerinus discovered in the year 1837 in the third pyramid of Memphis is of sycamore wood. Compare Lenormant, Éclaircissemens s. le Cercuil du Roi Mycerinus, p. 4, Paris 1839.

[281]Do sarcophago olim ita tradi solebat acsi omne mumiae sarcophago conditae essent; atqui paucissimae ei inclusae sunt nec nisi in quas major impensa facta. Compare Maillet in Rosenm, A. u. N. M. Th. I. S. 257. At the close of this chapter, we would also call attention to the wonderful change in the spirit of the Egyptian people, which appears in the narrative of the Pentateuch. Abraham found an easy entrance into Egypt and a friendly reception, and no distinction between him and the Egyptians is manifested. In the time of Joseph the spirit of the Egyptian people had acquired a more decided character; already are the shepherds an abomination, and Joseph must be freed from the ignominy of his origin by an alliance with the daughter of a priest of the highest rank. But still that such an alliance is possible shows that the repulsive severity of the Egyptians against strangers had not yet reached its greatest height. The manner in which Pharaoh answers the request of Joseph for the admission of his family into Egypt proves the same thing. But just at the beginning of the Exodus we see the hatred and contempt of the Egyptians against all foreigners, and their strong national egotism, which is so conspicuous in the circumstance that the term man is used exclusively for their people, designating them as of the highest rank.^{[282] [282]} Salvolini Campagne de Khamses, Paris 1835, p. 261.

Appendix to Chapter I. By the Editor. As the theory of a gradual spirit of exclusiveness, having grown spontaneously up among the Egyptian people, is contrary to all historical experience, it is to be regretted that the author should not have more closely examined the nature of the proofs which he has adduced in its support. Had he done so, it is probable that he would have altered or modified his views, for, when closely investigated, his authorities will ho found to indicate an inference directly contrary to that which he has adduced. But in truth, the learned author adopted this hypothesis in order to support another equally unfounded. It is therefore advisable to examine both together; and having already done so in a popular periodical, the Editor deems it his duty to republish what he has there said, simply adding, that a subsequent examination of the subject has only confirmed him in the opinions which he had formed.

Although the professed object of Dr Hengstenberg is to refute the cavils of Von Bohlen and other neologists, he is himself so far a rationalist, as to attempt to solve the problem of miracles by natural phenomena, and to deny the originality, and consequently the divine authority, of the Levitical law. In Order to establish this point, he is driven to deny the existence of any national hatred between the Hebrews and the Egyptians, and to reject totally the received account of the Hycsos, or shepherd kings. On this he stakes the issue between the schools of biblical criticism in England and Germany, and he thus invests the question with sufficient importance to justify its minute investigation.

Hengstenberg’s theory is essentially the same as that which was long ago started by Perizonius, that the account of the Hycsos was a fable invented after the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek, by some enemy of the Jews, in order to remove the infamy of the circumstances attending the Exodus from the Egyptians, and fix it on the Israelites. There is no doubt that many such forgeries were devised for this purpose; we have a specimen of them in the strange account given of the Jews by Justin, and in the tales of Apion refuted by Josephus. We may also safely concede, that very little reliance can be placed on the authority of Manetho as an historian, wherever anti-Jewish prejudices were likely to interfere, and that we must reject his story of the Israelites having been lepers expelled from Egypt; we may even go further, and grant that the whole history of the Hycsos must be given up, if we do not find it in some degree confirmed by the monuments. Still, we assert, in opposition to DrHengstenberg, that traces of Egypt having suffered from a foreign foe, are to be found in the Pentateuch. We have stated the question fairly, and are not aware of having omitted any material point in issue. The monuments indisputably establish that there was some Asiatic race which the Egyptians viewed with detestation; they are constantly brought before us in the most humiliating and degrading situations; we find them crushed under the chariot-wheels of the kings, trampled beneath the feet of the warriors, and massacred without mercy. Captives of the hated race are represented as the worst of slaves; they are figured as Caryatides, supporting vases and other articles of domestic furniture, particularly the foot-baths; they are even painted on the soles of shoes or sandals, as if to intimate that they should be for ever trodden down under the feet of their enemies. We see them on the monuments represented as the supporters of a throne or chair of state, and the artist has indulged the national enmity, by adding to this degradation chains, fetters, and a most painful posture. Peculiarity of colour and physiognomy, connects these hated captives with the Semitic tribes of Syria and northern Arabia, while their costume clearly distinguishes them from the Jewish prisoners depicted on the monuments. The cause of this hatred is sufficiently obvious; Egypt, on its north-eastern frontier, was exposed to the ravages of the nomade tribes of south-western Asia, whose plundering propensities have varied very little during thecourse of thirty centuries. It was from this quarter alone that the valley of the Nile was exposed to danger from invasion and conquest. Through it came successively the Persians, the Macedonians, the Arabs, and the Turks; and we shall now show, that in the age of Joseph, it was regarded as the most vulnerable point of the empire of the Pharaohs. When the ten sons of Jacob appeared before their brother, Joseph, assuming the character of an Egyptian, treated them with what appeared both to them and the bystanders, not unreasonable suspicion—“Joseph remembered the dreams which he had dreamed of them, and said unto them, Ye are spies; to see the nakedness of the land ye are come. And they said unto him, Nay, my lord, but to buy food are thy servants come. We are all one man’s sons; we are true men, thy servants are no spies. And he said unto them, Nay, but to see the nakedness of the land ye are come.” (Genesis 42:9-12.) The phrase, “nakedness of the land,” (את־ערותהארץEth Gneruth Haāretz,)signifies, “the defenceless part of the country,” that is, the part through which the brethren had come on their way to the court. Again, when Pharaoh granted the land of Goshen to the Israelites, he particularly inquired whether there were “any men of activity,” (that is, “warriors,” as the phrase is elsewhere translated,) because such only were fit to be intrusted with the care of the cattle on an exposed frontier.

Dr Hengstenberg asserts that the Egyptians refused to eat with the brethren of Joseph, simply because they were shepherds, but he forgets that the objection, as originally stated, is to their race, and not to their profession. “And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves; because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.” (Genesis 43:32.)

Here “Hebrews,” not “shepherds,” are declared to be “an abomination to the Egyptians;” for the name “Hebrews,”עברים(fromעבר Habar, to pass,) signifies “passengers” or “wanderers,” and was applied to the family of Abraham, because they were nomades from beyond the Euphrates. It was therefore because they were connected by their mode of life with the natural enemies of the Egyptians, and not because they followed the same profession as a despised caste, that contact with them was shunned as an abomination. Now it would be contrary to the whole course of history to ascribe such intense and pertinacious hatred to anything but a long continuance of national injuries and hostilities; there is therefore a strong probability for the truth of the invasion of the Hycsos, but there is reason to believe that their dominion did not extend beyond Lower Egypt.

Heeren has remarked, that Egypt might have been attacked on the side of the Red Sea, and he refers to a picture of a naval engagement, to show that its frontiers were not quite so secure as they are generally represented. But it is not quite clear from the representation, whether the Egyptians were the assailants or the assailed in this battle; indeed many circumstances,—particularly the superior trim of their ships, arguing previous preparation, while the enemies arc only provided with rude rafts— would seem to prove that in this instance the Egyptians are invaders. But in neither case is Dr Hengstenberg’s case served, for the hostile race here depicted has no resemblance whatever to the Hycsos; they wear head-dresses of feathers, such as are described in ancient Hindu records, and such as the Indian caciques wore when America was discovered by Columbus.

Having fully proved that there was a hostile Asiatic race peculiarly odious to the Egyptians, we shall for the future speak of them as the Hycsos, without at all pledging ourselves to the propriety of the term, for our concern is not with the name but with the fact. Joseph’s reference to the nakedness of the land, that is, to its want of fortresses and other means of defence, will appear peculiarly appropriate when we learn that the chief strength of the Hycsos consisted in their castles and towers erected on the hills of Idumea and Southern Syria. Jerusalem itself was originally a mountain castle, erected by the plundering tribe of Jebusites as a fastness to secure their booty on the top of Mount Zion; and so great was the strength of the place, that when David besieged it, the Jebusites tauntingly declared that they would intrust the defence of the place to the lame and the blind. (2 Samuel 5:6-8.) It has been plausibly conjectured, that the various places in Canaan to which the epithet Kirjath, “an edifice,” is attached, were the places of strength belonging to the smaller tribes of Palestine; and hence the conquest of them was proposed as a prize deed of arms to the young warriors of Israel. An example of this occurs immediately after the death of Joshua. “Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjath-sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife. And Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it; and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife.” (Joshua 15:16-17.) The affiliation of nations and their various migrations in the earlier ages of the world, must be expected to present many problems of difficult solution, particularly when recorded in the exaggerated style of the Oriental nations. The titles of the ancient kings of Asia and Africa are far from affording a fair indication of the extent of their dominions: many proclaimed themselves sovereigns over countries of which they possessed as little as the monarchs of England did of France, or the kings of Spain did of Jerusalem. When DrHengstenberg speaks of mighty armies, systematic plans of conquest, and extensive organization of military power, as necessary to the existence of the Hycsos, he merely conjures up shadows of his own imagination, to dismiss them again as unceremoniously as Gulliver did the ghosts of Glubbdubdub. Who ever dreamed of looking for vast armaments and political combinations among the northern sea-kings?yet their conquests of England, Ireland, and Normandy are matters of history. What these pirates were by sea, the Hycsos were by land—desultory marauders, to whom a fortuitous combination of circumstances may have given a temporary supremacy. The Hebrews were not only a distinct race from the Egyptians, but they were so separated by prejudices, social institutions, and all that constitutes the individual existence of races, that a fusion of the two wasmorally impossible: indeed, so far was Moses from adopting a code of laws which would have Egyptianized the Israelites, that it would be easy to point out many institutions which had no other object than to induce habits directly contrary to those which the Israelites had learned in Egypt.

It is quite clear from the narrative, that Joseph had taken extraordinary pains to naturalize himself in Egypt. As a stranger is said to have been recognised in Athens from the superior purity of his Attic dialect, so the chief means by which Joseph could be recognised as a foreigner, was his greater strictness in adhering to purely Egyptian usages. This strictness had nearly led to his detection, when he caused his brethren to be marshalled at the banquet in the order of their age. “And they sat before him, the first-born according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth: and the men marvelled one at another.” (Genesis 42:33.) The mention of the posture used at table, proves that the writer of the history was well acquainted with Egyptian customs, for the patriarchal usage was to recline at meals. (Genesis 18:4.) There are indeed frequent instances of couches on the Egyptian monuments, but these were only used for sleeping; in all the representations of entertainments, the ladies and gentlemen are depicted sitting on stools or chairs. It is also mentioned that Joseph sat apart from the rest, and we find from the monuments that a separate table was usually placed before each of the distinguished guests present. The number and variety of dishes set on each table were proportioned to the rank of each guest, or to the estimation in which he was held by the person who gave the entertainment. To this custom allusion is distinctly made by the sacred writer. (Genesis 43:34.)

Dr Hengstenberg renews the subject in his Appendix, and we shall then have occasion to show, that the invasion of the Hycsos is as well established as any fact in ancient Egyptian history.