12. Chapter III: The Signs and Wonders in Egypt.

Chapter III: The Signs and Wonders in Egypt. The Connection of the Supernatural with the Natural in the Plagues of Egypt. THE part of Exodus which we now proceed to examine, is of great importance for our object, first and principally in that the supernatural events described, all find a foundation in the natural phenomena of Egypt, and stand in close connection with ordinary occurrences, and also on account of the many separate references in the narrative, which show how very accurate the author’s knowledge of Egypt was. As respects the first point, many have wished to make the connection of the wonders with the natural phenomena of Egypt, an argument against the Pentateuch. So indeed the English deists have done, as, for example Morgan.^[352]—Among those more recent, v. Bohlen^[353] is conspicuous. Moses, he remarks, in order to avoid the suspicion of self deception, was at least obliged to express himself in the mildest manner possible among his contemporaries, who were so well acquainted with Egypt, if he wished to make the commonly observed natural phenomena avail as miracles. But it is perfectly clear, that these occurrences as they are related, notwithstanding their foundation in nature, always maintained their character as miracles, and consequently are sufficient to prove what they are intended to prove, and to accomplish what they did accomplish. Attempts to merge the supernatural in the natural, such as have been made by Du Bois Aymè,^[354] and then by Eichhorn,^[355] will not accomplish their design. Indeed, the unusual force in which the common exhibitions of nature here manifest themselves, and especially their rapid succession, while at other times only a single one exhibits itself with unusual intensity, as well as the fact that Eichhorn, notwithstanding all the unnatural misrepresentations in which he allowed himself, yet found material for a treatise on the wonderful year of Egypt,—if we at the same time consider these events in connection with the changing cause of them, and also take into account the exemption of the Land of Goshen,—bring us to the limits of the miraculous; for the transition to the miraculous is reached by the extraordinary in its highest gradation.^{[356] [352]} Comp. Lilienthal, die gate Sache der göttl. Offenb. Th. 9. S.33.

[353] S. 56. der Einl.

[354] Notice sur le sejour des Hebreux en Egypte, Description, t. viii.

[355] In his Treatise, De Aegypti Anno mirabili.

[356] Even Du Bois Aymé in a manner acknowledges this. He says, Descr. t. 8. p. 110: “Que l’ on écarte donc de la description des plaies d’ Égypte les exaggérations poétiques permises à celui, qui decrit avec transport les phénomenes qui ont servi à la délivrance de son peuple, et l’ on verra tout prestige s’ évanouir; mais le concours de tant d’ événemens extraordinaires quoique naturels, et leur résultat sur le cour, endurci du Pharaon, pourrout nèanmoins être considérés comme une preuve frappante de la protection divine.” But we are brought into the sphere of the miraculous itself, by the circumstance that these things are introduced and performed by Moses, that they cease at his request, and a part of them at a time fixed upon by Pharaoh himself.^[357] Hence the connection with natural phenomena can be made to avail against the Pentateuch, only when, going beyond the present narrative, we limit what in it can be explained by the natural occurrences of Egypt, and establish the presumption, that the remainder belongs to fiction. But this assumption wants all foundation. Not until the historical character of the Pentateuch is disproved, is it necessary, in conformity with the natural philosophy of Egypt, to separate truth and fiction from one another, although it is then better to transfer the whole narrative to the province of mythology, since the natural in it acquires its significance merely through its connection with the supernatural. And so soon as it shall be separated, we can no longer comprehend how Moses could make use of this to prove anything, and how it produced the consequences ascribed to it.

[357] SeeExodus 8:5seq.

But, that the natural is in itself a presumption against the supernatural, and thus furnishes an argument against the historical veracity of the Pentateuch, cannot be affirmed. If we exert ourselves to bring forward any one tenable reason for this, we shall soon see that we have allowed an entirely arbitrary assumption. On the contrary, that the connection with the natural serves for confirmation to the supernatural, is clear from the following reasons.

Since we have shown that the natural ground-work of these wonderful events cannot be made an argument against the Pentateuch, it belongs to us also to point out how far it is in favor of the same. Here comes into view, first, the fitness of this character of the miracle to the end designed. The supernatural presents generally in the Scriptures, no violent opposition to the natural, but rather unites in a friendly alliance with it. This follows from the most intimate relation in which natural events also stand to God. The endeavor to isolate the miraculous can aid only impiety. But there was here a particular reason also for uniting the supernatural as closely as possible with the natural. The object to which all of these occurrences were directed, according to Exodus 8:20, was to show that Jehovah is Lord in the midst of the land. Well-grounded proof of this could not have been produced by bringing suddenly upon Egypt a succession of strange terrors. From these it would only have followed that Jehovah had received a momentary and external power over Egypt. On the contrary, if the events which annually return were placed under the immediate control of Jehovah, it would be appropriately shown that He was God in the midst of the land, and the doom of the false gods which had been placed in his stead would go forth, and they would be entirely driven out of the jurisdiction which was considered as belonging to them.^[358]

^[358] Even the earlier commentators have occasionally hinted at this reason for a connection of the supernatural with the natural, yet without giving to the thought its full importance. Thus, Calvin, for example, in his remarks upon the account of the plague of frogs, says: Aegyptios ante quasi precario vitam duxisse ostendit deus, quia singulari beneficio protexerat ab incursu ranarum. Scimus Aegyptum ob multas paludes et lentum ac prope stagnantem Nilum multis ranis et venenatis bestiis fuisse refertam. Nunc quum subito erumpunt ingentes turmae, agrorum superficiem obtegunt, penetrant etiam in domos et cubicula, denique in regium palatium conscendunt: facile apparet fuisse ante cohibitas sola dei manu atque ita deum Hebraeorum fuisse regni illius praesidem ct evstodem.

Further, later fiction would aim specially at the dissolution of all connection between the supernatural and the natural, on the supposition that the dignity of the former would be marred, and that the omnipotence of the Lord and his love for Israel would be obscured, through this connection. It would make it an object to concentrate upon Egypt the strangest terrors. The consideration of the significance of the connection of the supernatural with the natural, which has just been pointed out, would not be sufficient to counterbalance this advantage, even if it could be supposed that this delicate manner of considering the subject, so far removed from common observation, would have been understood. And even aside from this view, a fictitious account could never succeed in sustaining so accurately the Egyptian character in connection with the supernatural, in preventing the obtrusion of an element which was not Egyptian. Were it even probable that individual Israelites of later times had an accurate acquaintance with Egypt, it would be of little advantage, since the thing would necessarily not take its shape from them merely, but far more from the prevailing ignorance of Egypt. Thus, therefore, the connection of the supernatural with the natural, throughout the whole, is an argument for the credibility of the narrative, for its composition at the time it purports to have been made, and consequently for its Mosaic origin.

Moses’ Rod Changed to a Serpent.

After these general remarks, we turn to particular explanations. A sign which is of a harmless nature, precedes, in Exodus 7:8-13, the signs which are comprehended in the number ten as a perfect number, and which are also plagues. Trial is first made, whether Pharaoh, in reference to whom Calvin^[359] so strikingly says, “There is presented us in the person of one abandoned, an example of human arrogance and rebellion,” will not become wise without severe measures. Moses’ rod is changed into a serpent, the Egyptian magicians accomplish, at least in appearance, the same thing; but Moses’ rod swallows up their rods. This counter-wonder of the Egyptian magicians is founded on the peculiar condition of Egypt; much more is the Mosaic sign,—the same by which indeed Moses had already, by the divine command, proved his commission from God, among the elders of his people. Moses was furnished with power to perform that which the Egyptian magicians most especially gloried in, and by which they most of all supported their authority.

[359] Nobis in unius reprobi persona superbiae et rebellionis humanae imago subjicitur. The incantation of serpents has been native to Egypt from the most ancient even to the present time.^[360] The French scholars, in their Description, have given the most accordant accounts of it. Even those who entered upon an examination of the subject with most absolute unbelief, have been forced to the conviction that there is something in it,—that the Psylli are found in possession of a secret charm, which places them in a condition to bring about the most wonderful consequences. “We confess,” it is said, that we, “far removed from all easy credulity, have ourselves been witnesses of some things so wonderful, that we cannot consider the art of the serpent-tamers as entirely chimerical. W believed at first that they removed the teeth of serpents and the stings of scorpions, but we have had opportunity to convince ourselves of the contrary.”^[361] “I am persuaded,” says Quatremère,^[362] “that there were a certain number of men found among the Psylli of antiquity, who by certain secret preparations put themselves in a condition, not to fear the bite of serpents, and to handle the most poisonous of them uninjured.” “In Egypt and the neighboring countries,” says the same author, “there are men and women, who truly deserve the name of Psylli, and who uninjured handle the cerastes and other serpents, whose poison produces immediate death.”^[363] That they do not probably break out the poisonous teeth, Hasselquist also testifies, from personal observation. According to the account in the Description,^[364] the art passes from father to son. The Psylli form an association claiming to be the only individuals who are able to charm serpents, and to free houses from them. Never does any other than the son of a Psylli attain to this ability. Serpents in Egypt often conceal themselves in the houses, and then become very dangerous. When anything of this kind is suspected, they have recourse to the Psylli. The French commander-in-chief wished at a certain time to examine the affair to the bottom. He called for the Psylli, and commanded them to produce from the palace a serpent, which, from traces discovered, was supposed to be there. The moist places were especially examined. There the Psylli called, by imitating the hissing, sometimes of the male and sometimes of the female serpent. After two hours and a fourth a serpent truly presented itself. In the religious festivals, the Psylli appear entirely naked, with the neck, arms and other parts of the body coiled around by serpents, which they permit to sting and tear their breast and stomach, and effectually defend themselves against them with a sort of frenzy, pretending to wish to eat them alive. Their sleight of hand is very various. They are able, according to their assertions, to change the Haje^[365]—i.e. the species of serpent which they especially make use of for their tricks—into a rod, and compel them to feign themselves dead. When they wish to perform this operation, they spit in the throat of the animal, compel it to shut up its mouth, and lay it down upon the ground. Then, as if in order to give a last command, they lay their hand upon its head, and immediately the serpent, stiff and motionless, falls into a kind of torpor. They wake it up when they wish, seizing it by the tail and rolling it roughly between the hands.” Du Bois Aymé^[366] gives his testimony to the same thing.

[360] Compare Aelian, 17. 5, and the summary of the accounts of the ancients, concerning the Psylli, in Quatremère, Mémoires sur l’ Égypte, t. I. p. 202 seq.

[361] In a Treatise, De l’ art des ophiogenes ou enchanteurs des serpens, int. 18. of the Descr. p. 333 seq.

[362] As above quoted, p. 204.

[363] Quatremère, p. 210.

[364] T. 24. p. 82 seq.

[365]It is worthy of notice, that this species of serpent, the asp of the ancient Egyptians, was considered sacred throughout the whole country. “It was worshipped,” saysPlutarch,De Isid., “on account of a certain resemblance between it, and the operations of the divine power. It was the emblem of the god Neph, and the goddess Ranno. The asp was easily tamed, and came from its place of concealment by the snapping of the fingers.”Aelian(Lib. vi. c. 33) speaks of the power of the Egyptians to charm serpents, and call them forth from their lurking places, &c. “Mummies of them have been discovered in the Necropolis of Thebes.” CompareWilk.Vol. 1. Sec. Ser. p. 237—242, also upon the Cerastes or horned snake, mentioned on p. 101, see 245 seq.

[366]Page 108. That which is related to us of the condition of modern serpent charmers in the practice of their sleight of hand, is entirely sufficient to give an insight into the condition of the Egyptian magicians who withstood Moses. The state of these last, no less than the first, was certainly that of the highest enthusiasm, and cannot be attributed to a merely deliberate attempt to deceive; although deception, as is shown to be the case with the modern Egyptian Psylli, is by no means excluded by enthusiasm, but rather often goes hand in hand with it. That the condition of the Psylli is one of ecstacy is indeed clear from the passages already quoted. According to Minutoli,^[367] “the people consider them as holy. At certain “‘festivals, e.g. on the day before the departure of the great caravan to the Holy Caaba, they go forth in procession with live snakes around their necks and arms, having their faces in contortions like an insane person, until foam falls from the mouth. They sometimes also tear the serpents with their teeth.^[368] When they are in this condition, the people press around them, especially the women, in order if it is possible, to touch their foaming mouths with their hands.” The same author describes one of the Psylli, who had been sent for to free a house from serpents, in the following manner: “The appearance of this man was that of a true magician. In the beginning of his operation he stripped himself naked even to a little apron about his hips; upon his breast hung a chain of black coral; his head was shorn to a bunch of hair which stood up like bristles upon the top of his head; his body was dark brown and muscular. Rolling his eyes, and with the rod of divination in his hand, he now walked forth with a grave demeanor, and in the meantime, whilst casting forth louder and louder imprecations, and thrusting against the ceiling and walls with his divining rod, he searched thoroughly the chambers and corners, now of the upper and now of the lower story. His fumigations of meal, sulphur and onion parings were at last so stupifying that a hard cough often interrupted the formula of incantation, and he was several times obliged to invigorate himself by smoking a pipe of tobacco.”

[367] S. 266, ff. der Reise.

[368]Lane,in his “Modern Egyptians,” Vol. II. p. 207, says: “Serpents and scorpions were not unfrequently eaten by Sáadees, during my former visit to this country. The former were deprived of their poisonous teeth or rendered harmless, by having their upper and lower lips bored, and tied together on each side with a silk string, to prevent their biting; and sometimes, those which were merely carried in procession, had two silver rings put in place of the silk strings. Whenever a Sáadec ate the flesh of a live serpent, ho was, or affected to be, excited to do so by a kind of frenzy. He pressed very hard, with the end of his thumb, upon the reptile’s back, as he grasped it, at a point about two inches from the head; and all that he ate of it, was the head and the part between it and the point where his thumb pressed; of which he made three or four mouthfuls: the rest he threw away.”

It is entirely contrary to the spirit of antiquity in general, and of Egyptian antiquity in particular, to explain the phrase, “This is the finger of God,” chap. VIII, as meaning, “This is accomplished by God,” so that the magicians say, that until now they have contended with Moses and Aaron upon earthly ground, with human means, and there they have overcome, but now God appears.^[369] It should rather be explained: By the power of God have they obtained the victory. They certainly also ascribe to Elohim (not Jehovah) their former success; the whole contest was a contest of God, Genesis 30:8, and therefore their present inability must be to them of just so much greater significance.

[369] Calvin says: Digitum dei opponunt suae solertiae et peritiae. Pudebat enim fateri quenquam mortalium scientia praecellere.

It deserves to be noticed also, that the present condition of the Psylli in Egypt is entirely one of decay. It is torn loose from its natural connexion, the soil of natural religion from which it originally sprung. It exists in a land in which even now modern illumination has variously exerted its influence and hindered its freedom. Accordingly nothing is more natural than that very much that is artificial should be added to the exstatic condition, and that very much charlatanry should creep in. But what now remains of ecstacy is entirely sufficient to convince us of the intensity of it, as it existed in the time of the glory of the Egyptian religion and priesthood. The opinion expressed upon the proceedings of the modern Psylli, which we find among observers who are most free from prejudice, and also among those who on the other hand are decidedly under the dominion of prejudice, guide us in explaining the fact, that the author of the Pentateuch does not speak definitely upon the nature and origin of the results produced by the Egyptian magicians. Were the thing so simple as it is generally considered to be, were it either common jugglery or something really miraculous, performed by the permission of God through satanic influence, then the author of the Pentateuch would not, it may be presumed, fail to express an opinion upon it. But, since the ground on which these things rest—a very dark and difficult one—is not yet indeed but imperfectly explained by the most thorough investigations, it was preferable to remain standing at the outer edge without going deeper into the nature of these results.^[370] As respects the thing itself, a further insight into the nature of these consequences avails nothing. Whatever opinion they had of it, this is certain, that even in the first three signs, the superior power of the God of Israel made itself sufficiently known to any one who did not studiously seek a support for his unbelief and rebellion. They change, it matters not whether really or in appearance, their rods into serpents, but the rod of Moses swallows up their rods; they also change, at least on a small scale, water into blood, but they are not able to restore the blood toils former state; in like manner, imitating on a small scale the miracle of Moses, they brought up frogs upon the land, but they were not able to free it from the plague of frogs. “For the punishment of the Egyptians,” says Theodoret, “God gave also to magicians power, but not for removing punishment; since the king had not enough of his plagues, but even commanded the magicians to increase the chastisement, so God also punished him through these: Thou art not yet satisfied with the punishment inflicted by my servants, so punish I thee also by thine own.” And the relative power of the Egyptian magicians in the beginning, must serve to show in so much clearer light their entire impotence as it was first exhibited in the little gnats and then continued invariable. The contest was first intentionally carried on in a sphere in which the Egyptian magicians, as we certainly know with reference to the first sign, had hitherto shown their principal power. After they had there been vanquished, the scene was changed to a sphere in which they could not at all further contend, and the doom which in this way came upon them, fell through them upon their gods.^[371]

^[370] The wordבְּלָטֵיהֶ֑םin chap. 7:22 and 8:3, 14, in which it is often affirmed that a verdict of the author upon this matter is found, contains no such thing; and the whole contest is a vain one, since there is nothing existing which can give us any information concerning his opinion.

[371]Exodus 12:12.] The First Plague—The Water of Egypt Changed to Blood.

We turn now to the second sign which is also the first plague. It consists in changing the waters of the Nile, and the other waters of Egypt into blood. It appears from Joel 3:4, according to which, the moon shall be changed into blood, that there is no reason to suppose that literal blood is here meant. On the contrary the change into blood can properly only have reference to the blood red color; so that the blood here is the same as the water red as blood in 2 Kings 3:22. The designation is here evidently chosen for the sake of the symbolic character which this plague bears, as also the water red as blood in the passage referred to in the book of Kings has a symbolic significance, announcing destruction to the enemies of Israel. To the Egyptians shall the reddened water be blood, reminding them of the innocent blood which they have shed, and pointing to the flowing guilty blood to be shed. In this characteristic this plague is coupled with the darkness which afterwards covered the whole land, as both also appear connected in Joel 3:4 : “The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood.” In the symbolic colors arranged by the Egyptians, black was the color of death and mourning,—for that which is base and its author, the red color was chosen, probably as the color of blood.^{[372] [372]} Drummann, Ueber die Inschriflin Rosette, S. 108, 109. That there is found something analogous to this plague in the natural phenomena of Egypt has already long ago been said. The water of the Nile, a short time before the inundation, takes a green, and at the beginning of the inundation a red color. The cause of this change of color has not yet been sufficiently investigated.^[373] According to Antes^[374] the inhabitants name the water when the flood has reached its highest point of increase, (ma ahmar), red water. In the year 1673 the Nile reddened as early as the beginning of July and continued of a red color to the end of December, when it assumed again its usual hue.^[375]

^[373] Le Père Ainé in the Memoir sur la Vall6e du Nil, in the Deser. t. 18 p. 571 says: “The water at Cairo is found by analysis to be five times purer than that of the Seine at Paris. It, however, has this degree of purity only at the time when the inundation begins to diminish. The noxious qualities which are attributed to it, at the time when the water is low and stagnant, and when it begins to increase, appear to proceed from an innumerable multitude of insects which the heat generates in it. The causes which destroy the purity of the water at different seasons of the year, are not yet sufficiently investigated. The red color originates, probably, from the earthy particles which the flood brings along with it from Sennaar.”

[374] In De Sacy upon Abdollatiph, p. 346.

[375] Hartmann, Aegypten, S. 128. In common years, the water when it is green and red is drinkable. Sonnini^[376] says: “During the continuance of my journey, I with my companions had no other drink than the unmingled water of the Nile. We drank it without any one of us experiencing inconvenience, at all seasons of the year, even when the inundation so fills it with slime that it is thick and reddish, and appears truly loathsome.”

[376] Th. 2. S. 13. But sometimes, in years of great heat, this peculiarity of water becomes a great calamity. Thus Abdollatiph^[377] relates: “In the year 596 (1199) the increase of the Nile was smaller than had ever been known. About two months before the first indications of the inundation, the waters of the river assumed a green color. This increased by degrees, and it became putrid, and offensive to the taste. Sick people avoided drinking from it and drank well-water.^[378] By boiling, its smell and taste became worse. There also appeared in it worms and other animals which live in stagnant water.”

[377] De Sacy, p. 332.

[378] SeeExodus 7:24. That in our account the common plague existed in an entirely uncommon degree is evident, since the ordinary means of purification did not at all take effect, Exodus 7:19. The Egyptians could not drink at all from the river, Exodus 7:21, and the fish also died in it, Exodus 7:18. Of this last effect there is no other example on record. But what passes beyond the boundaries of the barely extraordinary and carries the occurrence into the region of the miraculous, is, that the changing of the waters took place not merely suddenly while it commonly is gradual,^[379] but it also was in accordance with the prediction of Moses, and just at the moment when he lifted his rod.

[379] Compare the interesting cases of the change of water to a red color in other countries. Rosenm. A. u. N. Morgenl. Th. 1. S. 281 ff. The circumstances which are also sometimes referred to as proof of the difference between this change of the water and the one which is common, namely, that it occurred at an entirely unusual time, and that it also ceased far more suddenly than common, are shown on closer examination to be without foundation. For with reference to the time of this first plague, there is nothing said in the account, and it is therefore most probable that in this respect it offered nothing extraordinary. The reason which De Wette^[380] adduces, that the first plagues, in reference to time, must border nearly on the last which took place some time between the end of February and the beginning of April: ‘They must follow each other at short intervals if they shall produce wonder and fear,’ has little force. For the facts were of a kind, that could not fail to make a deep impression, if they were separated from one another by even longer intervals; and besides, it had a peculiar significance, if Jehovah went through, as it were, an entire course with the Egyptians— following now with his miracles, the customary, revolving circle of nature in their land. Let it be remarked, as the account says nothing of the time of the first plagues, the assumption of v. Bohlen: “Since the Exodus of the Israelites was in the month Abib, just at the time of the Passover, the most of these plagues, which first appear in midsummer can be devised only by one who has a merely casual acquaintance with the land,” is baseless. But were such specifications of time found, it would be pertinent to call attention to the fact, that the author nowhere asserts that those extraordinary events are confined to the time in which the common events belong. The second asserted difference is founded on Exodus 7:25; “And seven days were fulfilled after that the Lord had smitten the river.” But we have no right to infer^[381] from this, that that condition of the Nile lasted only seven days. The words are rather to be closely connected with what follows, and the meaning is only, that seven days after the beginning of the first plague, concerning the end of which nothing is related, the announcement of the second follows.

[380] Krit. der Isr. Geseh. S. 193.

[381] With Jonathan who supplies: Et postea sanavit verbum domini fluvium.

Although it belongs not to our immediate purpose, yet we wish to remark here, briefly, upon the ridiculous contradiction which has been found in this narrative. How could the Egyptian magicians, it is said, after Moses has changed all the waters to a red color, do the same. Setting aside all forced solutions, this objection is easily and simply annulled by the remark that, the pressing of the word all, upon which this contradiction entirely rests, stands in opposition to the usage in the Hebrew historical writings in general, and especially in narrating the great deeds of the Lord in Egypt, concerning which the heart, full of gratitude and astonishment, was allowed to have no little influence. That no rule is without exceptions appears to the writer so self-evident, that he supposes there is no necessity to avoid the full expression, on account of exceptions, which with him are entirely in the back-ground. So he proceeds throughout. According to Exodus 9:25, for example, all the trees of the field were broken by the hail. According to Exodus 10:5, the locusts eat all the trees. If we here press the significance of the all, we shall have a contradiction for the explanation of which even the moat boundless carelessness is not sufficient.

Besides this most prominent Egyptian reference, already noticed, several others are found. We will begin with the one most striking among them, which is contained in Exodus 7:19. It is there said, Blood shall be in all of Egypt, “both in wood and stone,” (Luther: both in vessels of wood and stone). These words have at first view something very remarkable, and they lose it only when they are explained by the Egyptian customs, to which they refer, as has already been remarked.^[382] In common times they are accustomed to purify the turbid water of the Nile in vessels of wood or stone, generally in the latter. When it is desirable to purify it quickly, a ball of crushed almonds is thrown in; when there is time for the purification, it is done without them. The purification with almonds is particularly described by Prosper Alpinus, Pococke,^[383] and Savary. Of the simple process speaks Helfrich, as quoted by Hartmann:^[384] “Helfrich remarks, that the water in large vessels of wood, earth and also of unburned clay, even without the addition of almonds, settles in two or three days. According to others this is done even quicker.” And then Mayr^[385] says: “The water which comes upon the table is passed through vessels of a kind of earth which forthwith permits the liquid to filter through.” Le Bruyn^[386] says that it is considered as very fortunate, to be in possession of such a vessel of white earth. It is also said that the water becomes so putrid that it admits no purification. But it is of far more importance, than that the author knows the common method of purifying water among the Egyptians, to consider the precise manner in which he speaks of it. He does not obtrude this knowledge. He supposes that a mere hint is enough for his immediate readers, who were themselves acquainted with the peculiarities of Egypt, and it does not occur to him as necessary to add anything of explanation. Certainly these two words wood and stone are of no small importance with respect to the authorship of the Pentateuch.

[382] In den Beob. a. d. Orient, Deutsch von Faber, Th. 2. S. 315.

[383] 1. 312.

[384] p. 130.

[385] Reise, Th. 2. S. 19.

[386] Tom. II. p. 103. Thevenot, t. 1. p. 245, 60. The same verse furnishes us also another proof of the author’s acquaintance with Egypt. The Lord commanded Moses to take his rod and stretch out his hand, “upon the waters of Egypt, upon its streams, upon its canals, upon its pools and upon all its collections of water.” The classification of the waters of Egypt which is here given, appears to be entirely accurate and complete. The streams, נְחָרֹתNeharoth, says Faber,^[387] are the arms of the Nile; the ditches, יְאֹרִיםGarim, are the artificial canals;^[388] the pools, אֲגַּמִיםAgamim, are the stagnant ponds, which the Nile makes, called in Egypt, Birke,—of these there are many; the collections of water, כָּל־מִקְוֵהמַיִםKol-Mikvè-Maim, are all the other standing water, or that which is left behind by the Nile, the lakes and puddles, from which the peasants who live at a distance from the Nile, water their land; and indeed, even the inhabitants of Cairo are compelled to pay for and drink this water, since the carriers bring it to them on camels, instead of the Nile water which is farther off.^{[389] [387]} Zu Harmar, S. 326-7.

[388] Compare uponיְאֹרִים, with the signification of canals, Ges. Thes. s. v.

[389] Thevenot, t. 1. p. 173. In reference to the Egyptian lakes, Hartmann, S. 146, may be compared. He remarks: “Also upon them, the inundation of the Nile has a considerable influence, supplying them with water where they are dry, and increasing it where any yet remains.” See also Le Père, Mém, s. les Lacs de la basse Égypte, in the Descr. t. 16. p. 199 seq. The threat of Moses and the described inconveniences which its fulfilment brought upon the Egyptians, is founded on the importance which the Nile water has for the Egyptians, and upon the enthusiastic love of the inhabitants of Egypt for it. The Nile water is almost the only drinkable water in Egypt. For the water of the few wells is distasteful and unwholesome. The Turks, according to Mascrier, find the water so pleasant that they eat salt in order to be able to drink more of it. They are accustomed to say if Mohammed had drank thereof, he would have asked immortality of God, so that he might always drink of this water. If the Egyptians undertake a pilgrimage to Mecca, or travel elsewhere, they speak of nothing but the delight which they shall experience when on their return they again drink of the Nile water, etc.^[390] It is very justly said, after these circumstances have been referred to, “He who has never understood anything of the pleasantness of the Nile water, and does not know how much of it the Egyptians are accustomed to drink, will now find in the words of Moses, ‘The Egyptians shall loathe,’ etc., a meaning which he has not before perceived. The sense is, they loathe the water which they at other times prefer before all the water in the world, even that which they have previously longed for. They prefer to drink well-water, which in their country is so unpleasant.”^[391]

^[390] See Maillet, t. 2. p. 103.The salubrity and excellence of the water of the Nile have been ever the theme of praise, both with natives and foreigners. So nutritious were its qualities supposed to be, that the priests withheld it from their sacred bull Apis, lest the use of it should make him too fat. The natives at the present day frequently stimulate themselves by adding salt to fresh draughts from the delicious stream, and the Egyptians in foreign land speak of nothing with so much enthusiasm as the delight which they will experience from the Nile water on their return. The Egyptians, during the continuance of the plague, were not wholly without a resource; we read that “all the Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river.” (Exodus 7:24.) But though the waters of the Nile are remarkably good, that of all the wells in Egypt is so brackish as to be scarcely fit for use. SeeLam.,I. 293.

[391]In den Beob. a. d. Orient, S. 311. Compare also Oedmanns verm. Sammlungen, Th. 1. S. 130. Rosenm. A. u. N. Morgenl. Th. I. S. 276 ff. In Exodus 7:15, it is said: “Go to Pharaoh in the morning, behold he goeth out to the water, and meet him on the banks of the Nile.” In like manner in Exodus 8:16 ( Exodus 8:20): “Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh; behold he goeth forth to the water.” Both passages are founded on the divine honors which the Egyptians paid to the Nile. Moses is commanded to meet Pharaoh, with a commission from the true God, whom Pharaoh wickedly resists, just when he is preparing to bring his daily offering to his false gods. In the first passage, this moment appears to be the more fitly chosen, since the threatened demonstration of the omnipotence of Jehovah is exhibited directly upon the false god. The Egyptians, even in the most ancient times, paid divine honors to the Nile. Especially was he zealously honored, according to Champollion,^[392] at Nilopolis, where he had a temple. Herodotus^[393] mentions the priests of the Nile. “What the head is to the body,” says Horapollo,^[394] “the Nile is to the Egyptians.” “He is,” continues the same author, “according to representations whose antiquity cannot be determined, identical with Osiris^[395] and the highest God.^[396]“ Lucian^[397] says: “Its water is a common divinity to all of the Egyptians.” The monuments bear witness to the same effect as the ancient authors, they indeed very particularly represent, that even the kings paid divine honors to the Nile. According to Champollion,^[398] there is in a chapel at Ghebel Selseleh (Silsilis), a painting of the time of the reign of Remeses II, which exhibits this king, “offering wine to the god of the Nile, who in the hieroglyphic inscription, is called, Hapi Moou, the life giving father of all existences.” According to the inscription, this chapel is specially dedicated to this god. Remeses is called in it, “beloved of Hapi Môou, the father of the gods.” “The passage which contains the praise of the god of the Nile, represents him at the same time as the heavenly Nile, the primitive water, the great Nilus, whom Cicero^[399] declares to be the father of the highest deities, even of Ammon; and of this I am myself also convinced^[400] from other inscriptions on the monuments.”

[392] Ég. sur les Pharaons, t. 1. p. 321.

[393] In B. 2. c. 90:Οἱἱρέες αὐτοι οἱτοῦΝείλου. See Bähr on this passage.

[394] Bei Drumann, Insehrift von Rosetta, S. 100.

[395] Plut. de Is. et Osir. p. 363 D.

[396] Heliodorus, Aeth. 9. p. 435. Athen. 5. 203: “Αἰγύπτιε ζεῦΝεῖλε.”

[397] In the Jupiter Tragoed. opp. t. 2. p. 699. Edid. Reitz.

[398] In den Briefer aus Egypten, S. 121, D. Uebers.

[399] De nat. Deor.

[400] “Anaglyphum in vico Karnak repertum,” remarks Creuzer, (in Comm. Herod. p. 212,) who also, pp. 186-188, treats expressly of the divine honors paid to the Nile, “terna Pharaonis initia exhibit. Etenim primo loco sacerdotes eum aspergunt lustrantque sacra unda Nili,” etc. Compare also upon the deity of the Nile, Jabl. Panth. t. 2. p. 171.

Yet far more convincing than the knowledge of Egyptian affairs which the author exhibits, is here also the unpremeditated manner in which he exhibits this knowledge, and the want of every explanatory remark, resting upon the supposition, that such a thing is not necessary for his immediate readers. The Second Plague—The Frogs. The account of the second plague, the frogs, furnishes us far less abundant spoil than that of the first. It is implied in the account itself, in Exodus 8:5, that the waters of Egypt, even in ordinary circumstances, contain many frogs; and from the nature of these waters, we could scarcely imagine it to be otherwise. The statements of travellers in regard to this are, however, very scanty. Hasselquist^[401] mentions frogs among the Mosaic plagues which even now visit both natives and foreigners. According to Sonnini,^[402] the stagnant waters about Rosetta are filled with thousands of frogs, which make very much noise.^[403]

^[401] p. 254.

[402] Th. III. S. 365.

[403] An account of the different kinds of frogs in Egypt is found in the Descr. t. 24. p. 134 seq. That a sudden appearance of animals,—which though always present in a land, ordinarily are scarcely noticed at all,—in untold numbers so as to become a plague, has not been unknown in Egypt at other times, is shown by what Macrizi^[404] says of the destructions by worms: “In 791-2, the worms which destroyed books and woollen cloth, multiplied in a wonderful manner. A credible man assured us, that these animals ate 1500 pieces of cloth—more than fifteen camel loads. I was persuaded from what I myself saw, that this declaration was not exaggerated, and that the worms had destroyed in the region of the sea, a great quantity of wood and cloth. I saw at Matariah, garden-walls which were entirely pierced through by these little animals. About the year 821, this plague made its appearance in the quarter of Hosaïnïah, just out of Cairo. The worms, after they had consumed provisions, cloth, etc., which caused an incalculable loss to the inhabitants, seized upon the walls of the houses, and gnawed the rafters until they were pierced entirely through. The owners quickly tore down the buildings which the worms had spared, so that the quarter near was entirely laid waste. These animals carried their devastations even to the houses which stand hard by the Gate of Conquest and Victory.”

[404] In Quatremère, t. 1. p. 121. The Third Plague—Theכִנִּם, Gnats. As respects the third plague, it is now generally agreed, that by כִנִּם, kinnim, gnats are meant. These are even in ordinary years very troublesome in Egypt. Herodotus,^[405] as early as his time, speaks of the great trouble which the gnats cause, and of the precautions which are taken to guard against them. The passages in modern travellers are collected in Oedmann,^[406]—according to the testimony of Maillet and Pococke, they often darken the air in Cairo,—in Hartmann,^[407] and last in Eichhorn.^[408]Hartmann comprises the results in the following words: “All travellers speak of these gnats as an ordinary plague of the country. In cool weather they are especially bold. They pursue the men, prevent them from eating, disturb their sleep, and cause swellings which are sensibly painful. What Sonnini^[409] says of these gnats, in his account of his abode in Rosetta, is of peculiar interest: “It is asserted that the multitude of gnats, with which the streets and the inside of the houses were then filled, owe their origin to this employment (the drying of rice about the end of October). Indeed, there are fewer of them at other times. After the rice harvest, they go forth in multitudes from the overflowed fields in which the preceding generation laid their eggs. They come to trouble men, they make wounds, in order to suck their blood, not less burning than those of the Maringonins of South America.” These passages show that the time of the extraordinary public calamities corresponded merely to that of the extraordinary plague. The first plague, the changing of water to blood, transfers us to the period of the increase of the Nile, the gnats begin to multiply at the end of the inundation.

[405] B. 2. c. 195.

[406] I. S. 74 ff.

[407] S. 250.

[408] S. 17, 18.

[409] Th. 1. S. 246. The Fourth Plague—The Flies. The animals which constitute the fourth plague are designated by עָרֹב, arob. This word originally can scarcely have any other signification than the mingling, but it was secondarily applied to a distinct species of animals, which in Egypt especially compose the vermin or insects. That they were flies is argued: 1. From the authority of the Septuagint, which translates any, by dog-fly, Κυνομνΐα. 2. From the appropriate connection of gnats and flies. 3. From the fact that flies belong to the common inconveniences of Egypt.

How troublesome flies are in Egypt even in ordinary circumstances, is most clearly shown by the description of Sonnini:^[410] “The most numerous and troublesome insects in Egypt are the flies (musca doinestica L.) Men and animals are grievously tormented by them. It is impossible to form an adequate conception of their fury when they wish to fix themselves upon any part of the body. If they are driven away, they light again the same instant, and their pertinacity wearies the most patient. They especially love to light in the corners of the eyes, or on the edge of the eyelids, sensitive parts to which they are attracted by a slight moisture.” The description of the dog-fly by Philo^[411] is, for substance, entirely in accordance with this account. By this name insects incredibly monstrous are often designated. Aside from a little exaggeration, it is impossible to disbelieve in Philo. The name, dog-fly, is probably chosen to distinguish these insects from another very widely diffused species of flies, which is smaller and less troublesome.^[412]Abdollatiph^[413] says: “In consequence of the great dampness of the air, bugs, flies and fleas continue here a great part of the year.” In Jomard,^[414] just as here, flies and gnats are associated together, as plagues of Egypt: “The remark also that these cold seasons free the land from the plague of innumerable flies and gnats, whose bites are so troublesome and painful.”

[410] Th. 3. S. 226.

[411] See in proof of this Michaelis Suppl. p. 1960.

[412] Sonnini, S. 227.

[413] p. 5. De Sacy.

[414] In the Descr. t. 18. p. 2. 512. As the threatened plague made its appearance, Pharaoh caused Moses and Aaron to be called and said to them: “Sacrifice to your God in the land.” But Moses answered: “It is not meet to do so; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God. If we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, will they not stone us?” Exodus 8:22 ( Exodus 8:26). That there is here a reference to Egyptian customs has always been acknowledged.

According to the common theory, the very bitter exasperation to be apprehended by the Israelites from the Egyptians, was because the latter sacrificed animals which the former considered sacred. But there are two arguments against this supposition: 1. The designation, abomination, is not appropriate to the censecrated animals. This indicates that the animals which the Israelites slaughtered were not too good, but too bad for offerings. 2. The animals which were commonly taken among the Israelites for offerings were also among the Egyptians not sacred. The only one of the larger domestic animals which was generally considered as sacred, the cow,^[415] was also among the Israelites except in the case in Numbers 19, which is entirely by itself, not offered. The animals most commonly sacrificed, oxen, were also both sacrificed and eaten by the Egyptians.

[415] Compare Herod. B. 2. c. 41. Heeren, S. 363. The offence is rather that the Israelites omit the inquiry concerning the cleanness of animals, which is practised with the greatest caution by the Egyptians. That only clean animals were sacrificed by the Egyptians, Herodotus says, in 2. 45, where he acquits the Egyptians from the imputation of offering human sacrifices: “For since they are not allowed to sacrifice any animals except the swine and the bullock, and calves, namely, those that are clean among them, and the goose, how can they offer men?” What stress is laid upon cleanness, and how truly it is considered as an abomination to offer an unclean animal, is seen from Herodotus.^[416] Only a red ox could be offered, and a single black hair rendered it unclean. They also placed dependence upon a multitude of marks besides this; the tongue and tail were accurately examined, etc. Each victim must, after a prescribed examination in confirmation of its fitness, be sealed on the horns. To offer an unsealed ox was prohibited on penalty of death.^{[417] [416]} B. 2. c. 38. See also Bähr on the passage.

[417] The intolerant fanaticism of the Egyptians, which the answer of Moses implies, is also proved from other sources. Herodotus says, in B. 2. c. 65: “If any person kills one of these animals intentionally, he expiates his crime by death; if unintentionally, he must pay the fine which the priest imposes. But whoever kills an ibis or a hawk, whether intentionally or not, must die.” Even in the days of the Ptolemies, a Roman ambassador narrowly escaped being torn to pieces for having injured one of the sacred animals.

Fifth Plague—The Destruction of the Animals in Egypt. In reference to the fifth plague, the destruction of the cattle, there is not much to be said, since travellers have bestowed little attention upon the diseases of animals in Egypt. Only single scattered passages are found in the Description, and these indeed very general, so that it cannot be determined whether diseases make their appearance in Egypt, by which all kinds of the larger domestic animals are seized in like manner. It is said^[418] that murrain breaks out from time to time in Egypt with so much severity that they are compelled to send to Syria or the islands of the Archipelago, for a new supply of oxen. It is also said,^[419] since about the year 1786 a disease very much diminished the number of oxen, they began to make use of the buffalo in their place for watering the fields, and the practice is continued in later times.

[418] Descr. t. 17. p. 126.

[419] Descr. p. 62. That in the enumeration of the animals on which the plague shall seize, Exodus 9, horses are assigned the first place, and that too without further remark, is again one of the little things, which in such an inquiry as the one before us, is of so great importance, so soon as the scattered items are collected, and thereby rescued from the contingency to which each is subject. The Sixth Plague—The Boils. That the sixth plague, the boils, was miraculous only in extent, is shown by a comparison of Deuteronomy 28:27, where the same disease under the name of boils of Egypt is represented as of common occurrence there. But a more exact defining of the nature of this sickness is difficult. Rosenmueller^[420] considers it the elephantiasis which, according to Lucretius^[421] and Pliny,^[422] was peculiar to Egypt. But the appellation boil^[423] does not seem to be proper for this disease, still less the expression, “breaking out in blains” in Exodus 9:9. Besides, the elephantiasis does not attack cattle. Eichhorn appeals to a remark in Granger^[424] (Tourtechot): “In autumn sores come upon the thighs and knees, which remove the patient in two or three days.” These notices seem however to have reference to the plague, but it is uncertain whether this malady existed so anciently, and indeed it does not answer the circumstances, for the reference is evidently to a very painful, but not absolutely, dangerous sickness. Only a disease attended by feverish cutaneous eruptions can be meant, one which amid the variety of diseases does not easily admit of definition. But the destruction which small-pox and plague makes in Egypt, shows how very much the climate there disposes to such diseases. We are almost disposed to think of a disease which Thevenot describes: “There is besides,” he says, “a sickness, or rather inconvenience, for it is more inconvenient than dangerous, which makes its appearance when the waters of the Nile begin to rise. Then hot pustules which are very troublesome, and sting terribly, appear upon the whole body, and when the patient thinks to comfort and refresh himself with drink, he feels while drinking, and afterwards, stings as painful as if he were pierced with two hundred needles all at once.”^[425] But this disease which Thevenot, perhaps, described with some exaggeration,^[426] cannot be meant, since pustules are not referred to, but a sore; and this disease is not the object of the curse as our sickness appears to be in Deut. chap. 28. Besides the language in Deuteronomy 28:35, “With sore botch which cannot be healed,” is not appropriate to the disease, as well as what is related in the passage before us, that the magicians are not able to stand, and the cattle no less than men were attacked with it. See upon diseases which are common to men and animals, Mayner’s Anthropology.^{[427] [420]} UponDeuteronomy 28:27.

[421] B. 6. 112-13.

[422] He calls it in book 26, c. 5: Aegypti peculiare malum.

[423]שְׁהִיןfromשָׁהַן, in the dialects, incaluit, inflammatus est.

[424] Voyage de l’ Egypte, p. 21.

[425] Voyage du Levant, L. II. c. 80, p. 831.

[426] See other authors upon this same blotch in Hartmann, S. 59.

[427] Th. 2. S. 279. The Seventh Plague—The Tempest. The seventh plague was a severe tempest attended with hail and rain. In the narrative itself, Exodus 9:18, Exodus 9:24, it is said that the phenomenon was unexampled only in degree, and it is implied that it is not uncommon in Egypt in a milder form. Other accounts agree with ours in showing that tempests in Egypt are not unfrequent, and that they in general differ from the one under consideration, only in severity. These notices are explanatory of our account in so much as they represent that tempests are most abundant just at the time in which, according to Exodus 9:31, the tempest here described occurred. The accounts of ancient travellers concerning tempests in Egypt, in January and March, are found carefully collected in Nordmeyer^[428] and especially in Hartmann:^[429] “Mansleben and Manconys heard it thunder during their stay at Alexandria, the former on the 1st of January and the latter on the 17th and 18th of the same month; on the same days it also hailed there. Perry^[430] also remarks that it hails, though seldom, in January and February at Cairo. An account in the Notices^[431] bears witness to the occurrence of the same thing in February. Pococke even saw hail mingled with rain fall at Fium in February; compare Exodus 9:34. Korte also saw hail fall. Bruce^[432] heard in Cossir during the roaring of the winds through the whole of February, also afterwards on the Arabian Gulf, the crash of thunder. In March tempests are not uncommon at Cairo.” During Thevenot’s residence in Egypt a tempest discharged itself, killing a man.^[433] The residence of the scholars of the French expedition in Egypt, was not continued long enough to make complete observations of this kind. Du Bois Aymé^[434] affirms that during the two years which he spent in Egypt, he did not hear a clap of thunder but once, and that was so faint that several persons with him did not notice it. Coutelle^[435] says: “Natural phenomena succeed each other in this land with a constant uniformity. The same winds return regularly at the same time, and continue equally long. In the Delta it does not rain at all in summer and scarcely at all in winter. We have very seldom seen it rain in Cairo. Rain in Upper Egypt is a wonder. A higher temperature than that designated below, a harder frost, and more copious rains are extraordinary occurrences.” Jomard^[436] upon the climate of Cairo says: “Rain falls by no means so seldom in Egypt as is commonly asserted. First of all, Lower Egypt must evidently be excepted, as it covers a much more extended surface than the rest of the country, and lies where its greater or less proximity to the sea produces a more variable climate than that of Said. All phenomena with the exception of hail and snow follow there as in other countries, which are washed by the Mediterranean Sea. I have several times seen even hail at Alexandria. At Cairo the state of the atmosphere begins to be more settled, and in Upper Egypt, it is almost invariable.”

[428] Calendarium Aeg. Oecon. p. 11, 12, 20, 27.

[429] S. 41.

[430] p. 255.

[431] I. 260.

[432] 1. 267(?), II. 117.

[433] I: 344.

[434] 1. c. p. 135.

[435] In Obss. Meteorologiques in the Deecr. t. 19. p. 457.

[436] In Descr. 18. 2. p. 510 seq. The account of this plague comprises also other separate but very striking references to Egypt. One is found, first, in chap Exodus 9:19, where Moses says to Pharaoh: “Send therefore now and gather thy cattle and all that thou hast in the field; for upon every man and beast which shall be found in the field and shall not be brought home, the hail shall come down, and they shall die.” According to this verse, the cattle were not found in the stall but in the field, when the tempest commenced; Exodus 9:31 confirms this fact. With this agrees accurately our other accounts,—an agreement so much the more significant, since the time that the cattle were turned out was so short. Niebuhr^[437] says: “In the months January, February, March and April the cattle graze, whereas during the remaining months they must be supplied with dry fodder.” The author of the Egyptian calendar^[438] shows the same thing. Also according to the Description,^[439] the cattle get green food only four months of the year, the rest of the time, dried fodder.

[437] Reisebeschr. I. S. 142.The lotus was particularly useful as fodder for cattle. In the account of Pharaoh’s dream, we read: “And, behold, there came up out of the river seven well favoured kine and fat-fleshed; and they fed in a meadow.” (Genesis 41:2.) Here the wordAehu,renderedmeadowby our translators, really signifies a succulent aquatic plant, such as the byblus or lotus. We learn from the monuments, and from history, that the fattening of cattle was extensively practised in the marshes, and that in other places stall-feeding was very common. This circumstance enables us to explain an apparent inconsistency in the history of the ten plagues. We are told, that “all the cattle of Egypt died” in the plague of murrain; but we read in the same chapter (Exodus 9), that some cattle were destroyed by the plague of hail. The contradiction vanishes, when we look to the limitation with which the plague of murrain was announced : “Behold the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle,which is in the field;”the plague, therefore, did not extend to the beasts which were in stalls and enclosures, aud these consequently survived to become the victims of the plague of hail.

[438]In the Notices et Extraits, t. 1. p. 252. See also Nordmeyer, p. 17; Hartmann, S. 232; Le Bruyn, I. 570.

[439] Tom. 17. p. 126. Not less important is the parenthetical remark of the author in Exodus 9:31-32 : “And the flax and the barley were smitten; for the barley was in the ear and the flax was bolled. But the wheat and the spelt were not smitten, for these come to maturity later.” In surveying what was destroyed and what was to be destroyed in case of persevering obstinacy, there is here named: First, the products on which the weal and woe of ancient Egypt depended. Compare respecting spelt as one of the most important products of ancient Egypt, the corn from which they prepared their bread, Herodotus,^[440] with the remarks of Bähr. There are representations of the flax harvest in Rosellini.^[441] The cultivation of the Durrah, from which the bread is made, upon which the common people for the most part live, is recent in Egypt. De Sacy upon Abd. p. 120. Of the cultivation of rice there is scarcely a single certain trace found, and it cannot at least have been general.^[442] Secondly, The author shows the most accurate knowledge of the time of the harvest in Egypt. Flax and barley are nearly ripe, when wheat and spelt are yet green. Theophrastus^[443] and Pliny^[444] say: In Egypt barley was harvested in the sixth month after sowing, wheat in the seventh month. Sonnini,^[445] after remarking that with the cultivation of wheat, that of barley is very important, says: “It comes to maturity about a month earlier than wheat, and its harvest is especially abundant.” Wheat and spelt come to maturity at about the same time.^[446] Flax and barley were generally ripe in March, wheat and spelt in April. Such circumstances are not in keeping with the character of a mythic historian.

[440] B. 2. c. 36, and also c. 77.

[441] Vol. II. p. 333 seq.

[442] Sonnini, I. S. 251 ff.

[443] 8.3.

[444] 18.7.

[445] Th. 2. p. 261.

[446] See Hartmann, S. 207. The Eighth Plague—The Locusts. The narrative itself indicates, Exodus 10:6, Exodus 10:14, that the animals, which constituted the eighth plague the locusts, were at other times somewhat common in Egypt, and that only the abundance of them was unprecedented. Other accounts also confirm this fact. Hartmann^[447] has collected the notices of ancient travellers, among whom Norden^[448] has particularly described what he saw in the following words: “In common with Syria and other regions of Asia, Egypt suffers from the locusts, yet no account can be found of their producing such terrible desolation here as in Syria, Arabia,” etc. But of especial interest is Denon’s^[449] account of a flight of locusts observed by him: “Two days after this calamity, (they had been suddenly overtaken by a heavy chamsin) we were informed that the plain was covered with birds, which flew in dense flocks from east to west. We in fact saw from a distance, that the fields seemed to move, or at least that a long current flowed through the plain. Supposing that they were strange birds which had flown hither, in such great numbers, we hastened our pace in order to observe them. But instead of birds, we found a cloud of locusts which made the land bald; for they stopped upon each stalk of grass in order to devour it and then flew further for spoil. At a time of the year when the corn is tender, they would have been a real plague; as lean, as efficient and as lively as the Arab Bedawin, they are also a production of the desert. After the wind had changed its course, so as to blow directly against them, it swept them back into the desert.”

[447] S. 249.

[448] S. 119.

[449] Vol. I. p. 287, London Edition. This account presents a striking agreement with ours, in three particulars: 1. In both passages, the locusts and chamsin appear in immediate connection with each other. 2. In both the flight is from east to west, which is even so much the more worthy of remark, since some, as recently v. Bohlen,^[450] have imputed it to the author, as a fault, that he represents the locusts as coming with the east wind. 3. In both, the locusts, by a change of the wind, are driven back whence they came.

[450] Compare page 8 seq. of this volume. The Ninth Plague—The Darkness. In the ninth plague, the darkness, it is scarcely possible to mistake the similarity to natural phenomena, since it has many other characteristic traits besides the one rendered most conspicuous here. The partial prominence given to the darkness in this plague is explained from the symbolic significance, which the occurrence has in this particular. The darkness which overshadowed Egypt, and the light which shone upon the Israelites, were symbols of God’s auger and favor. It cannot be doubted that the foundation in nature for this ninth plague is to be sought in the chamsin, whose effects in a higher or lower degree, all travellers who have visited Egypt, have experienced.

Hartmann^[451] has collected what is said by ancient authors. “The inhabitants of the cities and villages,” it is there said, “shut themselves up in the lowest apartments of their houses and cellars;^[452] but the inhabitants of the desert go into their tents or into the holes which they have dug in the ground.^[453] There they await, full of anxiety, the termination of this kind of tempest, which generally lasts three days. The roads during this time are entirely vacant, and deep stillness, as of the night, reigns everywhere.”

[451] S. 46 ff.

[452] Volney.

[453] Pococke.

Among modern writers we first refer to Du Bois Aymé,^[454] who compares the Mosaic darkness to the chamsin. The phenomena of the latter he describes in the following manner: “When the chamsin blows the sun is pale yellow, its light is obscured, and the darkness is sometimes so great, that one seems to be in the blackest night, as we experienced in the middle of the day at Gene, a city of Said.” A second description we quote from Sonnini:^[455] “The atmosphere,” he says, “was heated and at the same time obscured by clouds of dust; the thermometer of Reaumur stood at 27 degrees. Men and animals breathed only vapor, and that was heated and mingled with a fine and hot sand. Plants drooped, and all living nature languished. This wind also continued the twenty-seventh; it appeared to me to have even increased in force. The air was dark on account of a thick mist of fine dust as red as flame.” But of special importance for our object is the description of Denon:^[456] “On the eighteenth of May in the evening, I felt as if I should perish from the suffocating heat. All motion of the air seemed to have ceased. As I went to the Nile to bathe, for the relief of my painful sensations, I was astonished by a new sight. Such light and such colors I had never seen. The sun, without being veiled with clouds, had been shorn of its beams. It gave only a white and shadowless light, more feeble than the moon. The water reflected not its rays, and appeared disturbed.—Everything assumed another appearance; the air was darker, a yellow horizon caused the trees to appear of a pale blue. Flocks of birds fluttered about before the clouds. The frightened animals ran about in the fields, and the inhabitants who followed them with their cries could not collect them. The wind, which had raised immense clouds of dust and rolled them along before itself, had not yet reached us. We thought that if we went into the water, which at this moment was quiet, we should avoid this mass of dust which was driven towards us from the south-west; but we were scarcely in the river, when it began suddenly to swell as if it would overflow its banks. The waves broke over us, and the ground heaved under our feet. Our garments flew away when seized by the whirlwind, which had now reached us. We were compelled to go to land. Wet and beaten by the wind, we were soon surrounded by a ridge of sand. A reddish, dusky appearance filled the region; with wounded eyes, and nose so filled that we could hardly breathe, we strayed from one another, lost our way, and found our dwellings with great difficulty, feeling along by the walls. Then, we sensibly felt how terrible the condition must be, when one is overtaken by such a wind in the desert. On the following morning the same cloud of dust was driven, in like circumstances, along the Lybian desert. It followed the mountain range, and when we believed ourselves free from it, the west wind turned it back. Lightnings shot feebly through these dark clouds; all the elements appeared to be in commotion; the rain mingled with the lightning gleams, with wind and dust; everything seemed to be returning to chaos and old night.”^[457]

^[454] p. 110.

[455] Th. 3. p. 35 ff.

[456] Vol. I. 285.

[457] See other descriptions in Mayr, Reise, S. 245, and in Michaud, Th. 7. S. 11. The severity of the chamsin is very different in different years. Dschemaleddin describes in the Chronicle quoted by Rosenmueller in his Commentary, cases which seen merely in general, are considerably like those with which we are concerned. In reference to the one which took place in the eleventh century, it is said: “There occurred a great and violent storm, accompanied by darkness; edifices were destroyed and houses demolished; moreover at the same time Egypt was covered with so thick a darkness that all believed that the resurrection had come.” In the account of another wind of this kind in the twelfth century, he says: “There occurred such a darkness in Egypt that the whole air was obscured with dimness, at the same time there arose so heavy a wind, that the men all expected the resurrection.” The time in which the three days’ darkness falls is just that in which the chamsin generally blows.^{[458] [458]} Hartmann, S. 47. The Tenth Plague—The Death of the First-born of the Egyptians.

It may be proper to remark here, before we proceed with the tenth plague, that the phrase “all of the first-born” must not be pressed too far.^[459] The whole tenor of the narrative is opposed to such a proceeding, and particularly the declaration: “There was no house where there was not one dead,” in Exodus 12:30; since in every house there was not a firstborn. It must not be inferred that none of the first-born remained alive in the land, or that none besides the first-born died.^{[460] [459]} See p. 109.

[460] The account of an especially destructive plague in Egypt, in the Description, t. 15. p. 180, may be compared: “Howls and shrieks were heard in every house; funeral processions met one at every step. Several dead bodies were oftentimes put together on the same bier, and I saw men who bore them, give over their burden to others and lie down upon the ground with all the symptoms of the plague.”

If we take into view the time in which the last plague, the destruction of the first-born occurs, and farther also that it follows immediately the chamsin, we cannot deny that we find something analogous to it in a pestilence described by Minutoli.^[461] It is not material, whether it be allowed that the plague raged at so early a period, or that another similarly destructive disease existed in its place. The plague, he says, commonly makes its appearance at Cairo about the end of March, or at the beginning of April. The miasma is communicated merely by contact. Local causes, however, increase its malignancy, and even the prevailing winds have an important influence. With an uninterrupted chamsin the plague increases frightfully, and speedily takes off those who are attacked by it.

[461] S. 224.

Legh also gives a similar account: “A salutary influence (on the pestilence then raging) was also expected from the Nokla, or the rise of the Nile which begun on the eighteenth of June. The unhealthiness of the season of the year preceding this month is ascribed to the chamsin, or the wind from the desert, which commonly begins to blow about Easter-Monday and continues fifty days, and to the stagnant condition of the Nile. This notion is so settled among the Arabs that they are accustomed when it ceases to congratulate each other on account of having survived this period.—The two or three months before the summer solstice are esteemed so unhealthy, that it is said, that the plague always rages during this time, even in Cairo. During the same period the small-pox is also very dangerous.”^[462] Compare also the Description,^[463] where in accounting for this sickness it is imputed mainly to the chamsin, and it is remarked that great inundations which leave numerous morasses, always precede destructive epidemics.

[462] Reise in Aeg. D. Weim. 1818. S. 142.

[463] t. 15. p. 179. That the Egyptians are swept off by an epidemic is indeed probable, and much more than probable, from Exodus 9:15. What the Lord there says he had long been able to do, that, he now really does; since the reasons here given in Exodus 9:16, which, until now, have prevented him from proceeding to this last resource, have now ceased; since, in short, he has by a series of acts sufficiently unfolded his omnipotence and grace. For the sparing of the Israelites, certain things in nature analogous may be referred to, but they by no means serve to obscure the divine favor in the preservation, since this divine favor insured nothing less than absolute safety. Here may be quoted, first, what Minutoli says in reference to the plague: “It is remarkable that fear increases the susceptibility to it, but fearlessness protects against it.” Further, what Prokesch^[464] says of the Egyptian Bedawy, is appropriate here: “His health is unalterably good. Some ascribe the disease of the eyes in Egypt, which rages among the Fellahs, and even in the cities, to the dew and dust of the desert. But the Bedawy sleeps in the open air, and ranges from desert to desert, and this pest has never spread among these tribes.” With this agrees what Michaud says:^[465] “The Bedawîn are in general very temperate. They have no physicians and little sickness. The disease of the eyes, which is so prevalent an evil in Egypt, is almost unknown in the desert. The plague seldom extends its ravages among them.”

[464] Erinnerungen, Th. 2. p. 244.

[465] Th. 7. p. 29.

Those who are disposed to take offence at the analogies in nature, which we have adduced for the plagues, are referred, first, to what we have said in the beginning of this chapter, concerning the miraculous character of these occurrences, notwithstanding the analogy of nature. They are also reminded, that it cannot be denied that similar analogies are generally allowed to exist in relation to the wonders of the desert, the manna and the quails. But we wish the advocates of the mythic interpretation of the Pentateuch to know, that precisely that part of it which appears to them the strongest bulwark for their view, is most decidedly opposed to it.^[466]

^[466] It would require more space than the limits of a note allow, to examine the theory of the plagues, advocated by Dr Hengstenberg; it must however be remarked, that all the sacred writers who have referred to the Exodus, insist strongly on the direct interference of Jehovah to effect the deliverance of his chosen people, and speak of “the signs and wonders in the land of Ham,” as marvels without a parallel in human experience. Dr Hengstenberg’s effort to show that they were natural calamities in an exaggerated form, leaves still the greatest of all the wonders unexplained, the occurrence of ton such dreadful visitations in such rapid succession.