03. The Animals of Egypt and the Pentateuch.
The Animals of Egypt and the Pentateuch. The author, remarks v. Bohlen further in the passage referred to, supposes the existence of camels and asses in Egypt. The allegation, as fully stated by him with his reasons,[11] is as follows: “The narrator mentions the animals of his own native land, a part of which Abraham could not receive in Egypt. Genesis 45:23; Genesis 47:17, Exodus 9:3. He ascribes to him no horses which were native to Egypt, as the relator indeed is aware, Genesis 41:43; Genesis 47:17; but, on the other hand, he mentions sheep, which are found in the marsh lands of Egypt as seldom as camels (hence these last are denied to the country by the ancient writers) and asses, which were specially odious to the Egyptians on account of their color.”
It is said in the passage designated: “And he [Pharaoh] entreated Abraham well for her sake; and he had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and men servants, and maid servants, and she-asses, and camels.”
We inquire, first, why the horse is not also among the presents. Even v. Bohlen dares not assert that this circumstance is accounted for, by supposing that the author did not know how abundant horses were in Egypt. In the enumeration of the animals of the Egyptians, in Genesis 47:17, horses stand first, also in Exodus 9:3. The rearing of horses is considered in the Pentateuch as so peculiar to Egypt, that in Deuteronomy 17:16, it is represented as possible, that an Israelitish king, merely from love to the horse, might wish to lead back the people to Egypt. If now the reason why horses are not mentioned cannot be found on the part of the giver, it must be found with the receiver. It appears that horses were not yet in use among the Israelites, either in peace or war, at the time of Joshua and the Judges[12]. They were first commonly used in the time of the kings. But if the horse was not yet used by the Israelites, at the time of Joshua and the Judges, much less was it surely in the age of the Pentateuch, when the main object, which the keeping of horses subserved in Palestine, did not exist.[13] If now this is the reason why the horse does not appear in the enumeration of the presents, it is entirely in favor of the true historical character and Mosaic origin of the narration. If it owed its origin to the poetic tradition of the time of the kings, horses would certainly have been mentioned, since we cannot suppose that the time of the introduction of them was accurately known, and still less that the fiction was so carefully managed for the sake of maintaining historical consistency. But we need not stop with merely the present passage. The Pentateuch in other places continually implies that in the ancient times with which it is concerned, there were no horses among the patriarchs and their descendants. “Moses,” says Michaelis, “repeatedly describes to us the riches of the Patriarchs, as consisting of their herds, among which, while oxen, sheep, goats, camels and asses are enumerated, we never once find horses mentioned.”[14] The tabernacle was drawn by oxen in the desert. Numbers 7:3. That a great number of horses could not be conveniently kept in Palestine, is implied in Deuteronomy 17:16. These facts, according to modern views respecting the Pentateuch, are entirely inexplicable. They compel us at least to the assumption, that the composition of the narration precedes the time of the commencement of the kingdom, while at the same time the attempts to refer the substance of the history in the books of Joshua and Judges to later times, have also a formidable obstacle in the apparently trivial circumstance, that in them the horse is not represented as in use. Let it be borne in mind here, that we find nowhere a historical notice of the time of the introduction of horses, that they were in all probability introduced gradually, and that the Israelites did not probably know that which a scholar of the last century, by a laborious comparison of many scattered passages, has made entirely certain.
It has occurred to no one before v. Bohlen to deny, that there were asses in Egypt. All of the authors who speak of the hatred of the Egyptians to this animal, imply that it existed there.[15] How, also, could they otherwise have been sacrificed to Typhon. Swine too were considered unclean in Egypt, yet they were kept.[16] He and she-asses appear in great numbers on the monuments. The former were commonly used for riding—we find them represented with rich trappings,—the latter as beasts of burden.[17] A single individual is represented on the monuments, as having 760 of them, which makes it evident that they were very numerous.[18] [15] Compare the passage in Schmidt, de sacerd. et sacrif. Aeg. p. 283.
[16] Herod. 2. 47, 48. Schmidt, p. 269.
[19]
[21] Compare, on rearing sheep in Egypt, Girard in the Description, t. 17. p. 129 seq.
[22] 2. 41 and 2. 42.
[25] See Wilk. Vol. II. p. 368. Champollion, Briefe, S. 51, according to whom the treading down of the ground by rams is represented in the grottoes of Beni Hassan, 53. That the camel existed in ancient Egypt is indeed probable from the analogy of the present time.[26] It is acknowledged that they have not yet been found delineated on the monuments,[27] except those scattered traces which Minutoli[28] thinks that he discovered on the obelisks of Luxor. But this circumstance, at most, only proves that camels were not very abundant in Egypt, and even that not with entire certainty.[29] The Pentateuch itself also intimates the same thing, since in the passage under consideration, camels are mentioned last, and in Genesis 45:23, not at all. A multitude of objects which can be demonstrated to have existed among the ancient Egyptians are wanting in their paintings. In the numerous hunting scenes, for example, the wild boar is not seen, although it is a native of Egypt. The wild ass, which is common in the deserts of Thebaid’s also not met with.[30] Even fowls and pigeons, which Egypt had in so great abundance, do not appear, while “geese are repeatedly introduced.”[31] Of other objects which, although they certainly existed, are not found upon the monuments, the same author speaks on page 254, Vol. III, with which compare too what is said on page 344 of the same Vol. concerning the great deficiency of the monuments.
[27] Wilk. I. p. 351.
