========================================================================
  EGYPT AND THE BOOKS OF MOSES
  by E.W. Hengstenberg
========================================================================

Hengstenberg's historical and exegetical work demonstrating the accuracy of the
Old Testament by comparing it with Egyptian archaeological records, defending
the Mosaic authorship and historical reliability of the Pentateuch against
critical objections.

  Chapters: 18

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 00.3. Preface
    2. 00.4. Addendum by the English Editor
    3. 01. Negative Part
    4. 02.     Material Used for Building in Egypt.
    5. 03.     The Animals of Egypt and the Pentateuch.
    6. 04.     Use of Animal Food in Egypt.
    7. 05.     The Winds of Egypt.
    8. 06.     The Cultivation of the Vine in Egypt.
    9. 07.     The Origin of Civilization in Egypt.
   10. 08.     The Use of Iron in Egypt.
   11. 09. Positive Part
   12. 10.     Chapter I: The History of Joseph.—Gen. Chaps. 37-40.
   13. 11.     Chapter II: Exodus, Chapters I-VII.
   14. 12.     Chapter III: The Signs and Wonders in Egypt.
   15. 13.     Chapter IV: Exodus, Chapters XIV and XV.
   16. 14.     Chapter V: The Materials and Arts Employed in the Construction of the Tabernacle and Prie...
   17. 15.     Chapter VI: Egyptian References in the Religious Institutions of the Books of Moses.
   18. 16.     Chapter VII: Miscellaneous Passages.

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 00.3. PREFACE
========================================================================

Preface THE recent interest in the subject of Egyptian antiquities began with
the publication of the works of Champollion the younger, about twenty years ago.
Since his death, which occurred in 1832, these researches have been prosecuted
with much zeal, by several of his scholars and other distinguished
archaeologists. Two of the learned men of Holland, professors Reuvens and
Leemans, have made important contributions to the subject, derived in part from
the treasures of the Leyden Museum. The results of the labors of Rosellini,
professor of oriental languages and antiquities at Pisa, are of the highest
value. In 1829, he and his brother accompanied Champollion in the scientific
expedition to Egypt, which was undertaken under the joint auspices of the
governments of France and Tuscany. Champollion, just before his death, committed
to him the honorable office of bringing before the world the result of their
associated labors and studies. The first part of the great work of Rosellini,
which is yet incomplete, appeared in 1832, at Pisa, in folio, entitled, “I
monumenti dell’ Egitto e della Nubia disegnati della Spedizione
scientifico-letteraria toscana in Egitto, distribuiti in ordine di materie,
interpretati ed illustrati.” Through the liberality of the Grand Duke of
Tuscany, it is brought out in the highest style of typography.

It consists of a series of treatises which embrace the most important results of
the investigations into the history and civil institutions of the ancient
Pharaoh-dynasties under the Pagan, Greek and Roman dominion. The contents of the
work are as rich as the plan is comprehensive. It abounds in researches relating
to the languages, civil history, and history of the arts in the valley of the
Nile. Rosellini published in Rome, in 1837, in quarto, a valuable Egyptian
grammar, entitled, “Elementae Linguae Egyptiacae, vulgo Copticae.” In this
interesting field of research, several Englishmen have acquired high
distinction. Among these are Dr. Young, Major Felix, Lord Prudhoe and Sir
Gardner Wilkinson. Dr. Young shares with Champollion the honor of having first
indicated the right method of deciphering the hieroglyphical language. To Mr.
Wilkinson justly belongs the encomium which he has himself bestowed on
Rosellini. “He is a man of erudition and a gentleman, and one whose enthusiastic
endeavors, stimulated by great perseverance, are tempered by judgment, and that
modesty which is the characteristic of real merit.” Mr. Wilkinson’s principal
works on Egypt are contained in nine volumes, namely, “A general View of Egypt,
and Topography of Thebes,” in two vols. (a new edition was published in 1843)
and “Manners and Customs of the ancient Egyptians, including their private life,
government, laws, arts, manufactures, religion, and early history,” in two
series of three volumes in each. A second edition of the first series was
published in 1842. These works are full of most valuable materials, accompanied
with many fine illustrations. They everywhere exhibit that caution, sound
judgment, modesty and enthusiasm, which greatly delight the reader. At the same
time, the arrangement is susceptible of improvement, while the style is somewhat
heavy, and wanting in precision and scholar-like finish. It is delightful to
observe the reverence with which the author regards the sacred volume, and the
gratification which every undoubted illustration of its authenticity affords
him. He has now, for the fourth time, we believe, taken up his abode in Egypt.

Another distinguished investigator in these fascinating studies is Dr. Richard
Lepsius, a native of Naumburg in Prussia. He published, in 1834, a prize
dissertation entitled “Palaeographie als Mittel für die Sprachforschung zunächst
am Sanscrit nachgewiesen.” His studies led him to Turin and then to Rome, where
he was appointed one of the two corresponding secretaries of the Archaeological
Institute there. In 1842, Dr. Lepsius was sent to Egypt by the Prussian
government, in connection with a number of other learned men. He is reaping “a
rich harvest on this earliest scene of the history of mankind.” If the results
of the expedition correspond to the promises of the commencement, much new light
will be thrown on the ancient condition of Egypt.

These researches derive special importance from the light which they cast upon
the Old Testament records, especially upon the Mosaic history. An incidental,
undesigned, but most valuable proof is thus drawn from witnesses that cannot lie
in favor of the trustworthiness of those records. “Paintings, numerous and
beautiful beyond conception, as fresh and perfect as if finished only
yesterday,” exhibit before our eyes the truth of what the Hebrew lawgiver wrote,
almost five thousand years ago. The authenticity of the documents of our faith
thus rests, not on manuscripts and written records alone, but the hardest and
most enduring substances in nature have added their unsuspecting testimony.

“Egyptian history and the manners of the most ancient nations,” Mr. Wilkinson
remarks, “cannot but be interesting to every one, and so intimately connected
are they with the scriptural accounts of the Israelites and the events of
succeeding ages relative to Judea, that the name of Egypt need only to be
mentioned to recal the early impressions we have received from the study of the
Bible.”

It is the object of the present volume to collect and apply the results obtained
by these and numerous other authors as far as they relate to the Books of Moses.
This had not been done before the appearance of this work in 1840. Even the most
recent German commentators are sadly deficient in this respect. They have
scarcely made any advance upon the works of Spencer and Le Clerc, who wrote more
than a century ago. Some of the other works of the author of this volume, Dr. E.
W. Hengstenberg, are too well known in this country to render a statement of his
general qualifications for the work which he has here undertaken necessary. It
may, however, be proper to say that he has made the Pentateuch a subject of
special study, and probably no one in Germany or elsewhere has devoted more
attention to that interesting, but too much neglected portion of the sacred
volume. His situation as Professor at Berlin also gave him access to the rich
collection of Egyptian antiquities in the Berlin Museum, and the reader is left
to judge whether he has not made good use of his advantages. The form of the
work has been somewhat changed in the translation. The references to
authorities, which in the original volume were in the text, are thrown to the
bottom of the page. Nearly all of the italic headings have been inserted. In a
very few cases notes, which it was thought would add more to the size than value
of the volume to an English reader, have been omitted or abridged. In one
instance a long note from another untranslated work of the author has been
inserted in the text. The very few notes at the end have been added by the
translator. It was his intention to insert many more but they have been
unavoidably omitted. The translator is under great obligations to Prof. H. B.
Hackett of Newton Theological Seminary, who consented to listen to a large part
of the manuscript before it was printed, and make such corrections as his
accurate knowledge of the German language suggested. Much valuable advice and
assistance has also been received from Professor B. B. Edwards of Andover
Theological Seminary.

Andover, Sept. 1843.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 00.4. ADDENDUM BY THE ENGLISH EDITOR
========================================================================

Addendum by the English Editor

ANewfield of Biblical Criticism has been opened by the recent discoveries in the
tombs and temples of Egypt; the memorials of their manners, customs, and
institutions, which the people of the Pharaohs depicted on the walls of their
sepulchres, afford a decisive, because an unsuspicious, test of the historical
veracity of the Old Testament, and they have furnished confirmations of its
minute accuracy, which must silence where they do not convince the most
sceptical. DrHengstenberghas ably employed these new sources of evidence to
overthrow the rash theory of Bohlen, that the sacred books of the Jews were
written at a period posterior to the Babylonish captivity; it is to be
regretted, that while exposing the groundless theories of others, he should
himself have shown some tendency to adopt a scarcely less dangerous error, by
throwing doubts on the originality, and consequently on the inspired character
of the Mosaic legislation. In republishing his work in England, the Editor has
deemed it advisable to examine the nature of the doubts which
DrHengstenbergraised, and to take advantage of the most recent researches as
tests of their validity. He has found, that the more closely the subject is
investigated, the more clearly does it appear that the code of Jewish law was
derived from no previously existing institutions, and that, on the contrary, it
is in all its parts marked by a peculiar individuality such as no other
Theocracy ever possessed.The proofs of this will be found in the notes appended
to the English edition. Some other notes have been added, more fully
illustrative of the connection between the pictorial records of Egypt, and the
written records of Moses, than Hengstenberg’s plan admitted. A supplemental
Chapter has been added, for the purpose of examining Dr Hengstenberg’s theory
respecting the Hycsos; though this is but an incidental topic, it has a very
important bearing on the main argument, and the discussion involves many points
of great interest to all students of general history.

W. C. T.

Camden Town, November 9, 1844.

CONTENTS.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 01. NEGATIVE PART
========================================================================

Negative Part

IT is incumbent on us, first, in the negative part of our inquiry, to disprove
the pretended “mistakes and inaccuracies” of the author of the Pentateuch, in
relation to Egypt. By these, as has lately been asserted, he has betrayed, that
he lived out of Egypt and long after the time of Moses.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 02.     MATERIAL USED FOR BUILDING IN EGYPT.
========================================================================

Material Used for Building inEgypt. The author, says von Bohlen,[1] comes under
strong suspicion of having transferred to the valley of the Nile, many things
from upper Asia; as, the Egyptians were accustomed to build with hewn stone, and
the great buildings of brick, Exodus 1:14, instead of being Egyptian, seem
rather to have been borrowed from Babylonia.

[1] Einleitung zur Genesis, S. LV.Von Bohlen (Peter) was born at Wappels in
1706, of poor parents, and was left an orphan in 1811. In 1817 he was received
into the Gymnasium at Hamburg, where he turned his attention to oriental
studies. He was the pupil of Gesenius, Roediger and Hoffmann, in the University
at Halle, in 1821; and in 1822 he went to Bonn and attended upon the
instructions of Freytag and Schlegel. In 1825 he was elected Professor
extraordinary of Oriental Languages at Königsberg, and regular Professor at the
same place in 1830. He has since removed to Berlin. His work, so often referred
to in this volume, is entitled,“Die Genesis historischcritisch erläutert,”
Königsberg, 1835. It was answered by Drechsler, at Leipsic, in 1837. The
neological sentiments of the author may be easily inferred from the quotations
and references made byHenstenberg. Allusion is also made in this volume, in one
or two cases, to his book on India: “Das alte Indien mit besonderer Rücksicht
auf Aegypten.” He has published several other works which are somewhat known in
Germany.

We can scarcely trust our own eyes, when we read such things. Is it possible
that any one, who undertakes to comment upon the Pentateuch, and even ventures
to accuse its author of ignorance in relation to Egyptian affairs, can show
himself grossly uninformed in these same things, and make assertions whose
incorrectness is conclusively shown by the first good compendium! In a case like
the one before us, any one would first of all have recourse to O. Müller’s
Archaeologia.[2] There we read: “Building with brick was very common in Egypt.
Private edifices were indeed generally of this material.”

[2] § 226.

If we examine further, Herodotus[3] mentions a pyramid of brick,[4] which is
probably still standing.[5]

[3] 2. 136.

[4]Four built of brick are still in existence in Lower Egypt, two at Dashoor and
two at the entrance of the Fyoom. Several of smaller size are also found in
Thebes. See Wilkinson, Vol. I.131, and III. 317.

[5]See Bähr upon the passage. Mannert Geog. 10. 1. S. 444, 67.Macrizi, in his
description of the condition of Egypt under the Mameluke Sultans, mentions a
pyramid of brick in Lower Egypt, which is probably the same as that noticed by
Herodotus. But we are literally overwhelmed with proofs of the abundant use of
brick in Egypt, when we turn to those who, during the present century, have
explored the Egyptian monuments. Champollion[6], for example, speaks of a tomb
built of crude brick at Sais, and a temple of brick at Wady
Halfa.[7]Rosellini[8] says: “Ruins of great brick buildings are found in all
parts of Egypt. Walls of astonishing height and thickness are preserved to the
present time, as, for example, the circumvallation of Sais; also whole pyramids,
as those of Dashoor, and a great number of the ruins of monuments, both great
and small.” Wilkinson[9] says: “The use of crude brick, baked in the sun, was
universal in upper and lower Egypt, both for public and private buildings.
Enclosures of gardens and granaries, sacred circuits encompassing the courts of
temples, walls of fortifications and towns, dwelling- houses and tombs, in
short, all but the temples themselves, were of crude brick.” The same author
shows that building with brick was practised even in very early times, since the
bricks themselves, both in Thebes and the neighborhood of Memphis, often bear
the names of the monarchs who ruled Egypt in that early age.[10] [6] In den
Briefen aus Aeg. S. 14 der. Deutsch. Uebers.

[7] S. 83.

[8] I monumenti dell. Egitto e della Nubia, II. 2. p. 249.

[9] Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. London, 1842. Vol II. p. 96.

[10]AsHenstenberghas not given the precise dates here, it may be proper to add,
that arches were constructed of brick at least as early as 1540, B.c. in the
reign of Amunoph I., and probably in the time of the first Osirtasen, who is
supposed by Wilkinson to have been contemporary with Joseph. “It is worthy of
remark," says the same author,” that more bricks bearing the name of Thothmes
III. (whom I suppose to have been king of Egypt at the time of the Exodus,) have
been discovered, than of auy other period.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 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.”

[11] S. 163, uponGenesis 12:16.

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.

[12]See J. D. Michaelis, Mosaic Laws. Eng. Trans. Vol. II. p. 434.

[13] From the monuments we learn that horses were used chiefly in war,
especially for drawing chariots, in which the most distinguished Egyptian
warriors rode to battle. Solomon was the first ruler of the Hebrews who formed
an efficient corps of cavalry, and he obtained most of his horses from Egypt. As
Abraham was a peaceful patriarch, who avoided war even under circumstances of
great provocation, a gift of animals rarely used at the period would have been
every way unsuitable. The omission of the horse then, instead of being an
objection, is one of the strongest possible of undesigned confirmations of the
truth of the narrative.

[14]Mich. Mos. Laws. Eng. Trans. Vol. II. p. 436. CompareGenesis 20:14;Genesis
24:35;Genesis 26:14;Genesis 30:41;Genesis 32:6;Genesis 32:8;Genesis 32:15-16.

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.

[17] Taylor, pp. 6, 7.This distinction is noticed in the account of the presents
sent by Joseph to Jacob, when he invited the patriarch to Egypt: “And to his
father he sent after this manner ; ten asses laden with the good things of
Egypt, and ten she-asses laden with corn and bread and meat for his father by
the way,”Genesis 45:23.

[18]Wilkinson, Vol. III. p. 34. The assertion that sheep[19] were not found in
Egypt, every modern manual of Geography confutes. Ukert[20] says, “Sheep are
found in great numbers in Egypt. Their wool is an important article of trade,
and their flesh is the most common which comes upon the table.”[21] If Ancient
authors often mention the sheep of Egypt. According to Herodotus,[22] rams were
considered sacred by the Thebans, and sheep were sacrificed by the inhabitants
of the Mendesian nome[23] in the Delta. Plutarch says, the Lycopolites ate the
flesh of sheep, and according to Diodorus[24], the sheep produced their young
twice in a year and were twice shorn. Sheep appear on the monuments often and in
great numbers. Large herds of them were kept especially in the neighborhood of
Memphis. Sometimes the flocks consisted of more than two thousand.[25]

[19] Wilkinson, in his “Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,” second
series, Vol. I. pp. 130, 131, &c. gives the representation of a scene from a
tomb hewn in the rock near the pyramids of Geezeh, which is of special interest
as illustrating several points in Egyptian antiquity. The tomb bears the name of
the king Suphis or Cheops, which shows it, at least, to be the work of an age
before the 18th dynasty, and’ in all probability it was made about 2090 or 2050
B. C, more than a century before the arrival of Abraham in Egypt. The head
shepherd presents himself to give an account of the Hocks committed to his-
charge which follow after him. “First come the oxen, over which is the number
834, cows 220, goats 3234, asses 760, and sheep 974. Behind follows a man
carrying the young lambs in baskets slung upon a pole. The steward, leaning on
his staff and accompanied by his dog, stands on the left of the picture; and in
another part of the tomb, the scribes are represented making out the statements
presented to them by the different persons employed on the estate." The bearing
of this painting upon several subsequent parts of this volume should not be
unnoticed; compare especially pp. 25, 87.

[20]Nordhälfte von Afrika, S. 169.

[21] Compare, on rearing sheep in Egypt, Girard in the Description, t. 17. p.
129 seq.

[22] 2. 41 and 2. 42.

[23] Nome, province, from the Greekνόμος, is the name given to each of the 36
parts into which Sesostris divided Egypt.

[24]1. 36 and 87.

[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.

[26]Ukert, S. 169. Giard in the Description, t. 17. p. 128, says: “The camels
which are used in Said for the transportation of all kinds of freight, unless it
is sent by water upon the Nile or upon the canals, are inferior in size and
strength to those in Lower Egypt. The raising of these animals is one of the
chief employments of the Arabs who dwell upon the borders of the valley of
Egypt. They furnish the markets of different provinces with them. The camels
which are used for the transportation of the harvest do not always belong to the
husbandman. He hires them as he needs them. During the remainder of the year, he
makes use of the ass. There is no land-owner who does not possess several
asses,” etc. According to t. 15, p. 215 of the Descr. the camels of the Delta
are less valued than those of the provinces which border upon the desert.

[27] Wilk. I. p. 351.

[28] Reise, S. 293. Minutoli, Henry, Baron Menu Von, born at Geneva, of a
Savoyard family, in 1772, is best known by his antiquarian researches in Egypt.
He went to that country in 1820, and returned in 1822. A part of his collection
of antiquities was lost by a shipwreck. The remainder, purchased by the king of
Prussia for about 15000 fr., were deposited in the new museum at Berlin. His
most distinguished work is the “Journey to the Temple of Jupiter Ammon in the
desert of Lybia,” Berlin, 1824. He published “Additions to his Journey,” &c. in
1827.

[29] The absence of any particular animal from the monuments, is by no means a
proof that it was unknown in the country ; especially when we have decisive
evidence of the converse of the case—the appearance of an animal on the
monuments, not mentioned by any ancient writer in connection with Egypt. I
allude to the giraffe or camolopard, which appears more than once among the
articles of tribute brought down from southern Africa to the Pharaohs. It is no
difficult matter to account for the omission of camels on the monuments: the
great object of Egyptian policy, so long as the country was subject to native
princes, was to train a settled agricultural people; but the camel, or “ship of
the desert,” as it is poetically named by the Bedouins, was, as it still
continues to be, peculiarly the animal of nomade life. Even at the present day,
camels are chiefly bred by the Arabs on the borders of Egypt, and are only hired
by the agriculturists for transport as they are needed.

[30]Wilk. III. p. 21.

[31] Wilk. p. 35. In an Egyptian fresco preserved in the British museum,
representing a garden and pleasure-ground, geese and ducks are depicted swimming
in the ponds.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 04.     USE OF ANIMAL FOOD IN EGYPT.
========================================================================

Use of Animal Food in Egypt.

“The author,” says v. Bohlen[32] “represents Joseph, Genesis 43:16, in most
manifest opposition to the sacredness of beasts to prepare flesh for food.” In
his commentary[33] it is said: “The Egyptians partake, at most, of consecrated
flesh-offerings, and the higher castes, especially the priests with whom Joseph
was connected by marriage, abstain entirely from animal food.” Further:[34] “The
hatred of this people to foreign shepherds is founded on the inviolableness of
animals, especially of neat cattle, goats and sheep (the author forgets he has
denied the existence of these animals in Egypt), which were killed by the
shepherds, but accounted sacred by the Egyptians.”

[32] S. LV.

[33] S. 399.

[34] S. 397, uponGenesis 43:16. Our astonishment at the condition of our great
critic’s knowledge of Egypt is here again not a little increased, and the
credulity, with which so many use such an author’s work on India as good
authority, becomes, after the successive developments of his ignorance,
unaccountable to us. No one before v. Bohlen has ever thought of asserting that
the Egyptians abstain from all animal food. The contrary is found in all works
of acknowledged authority. Heeren,[35] for example, says: “Oxen are commonly
used for food and offerings.” And Beck:[36] “The Egyptians abstain from the
flesh of several animals, some of them sacred, as the cow, and some of them
otherwise, as from swine’s flesh.” How also can any one doubt that the Egyptians
ate flesh, when Herodotus alone furnishes abundant proof of the fact? According
to 2. 18, cows only, not oxen, were sacred among the Egyptians; in 2. 168, the
quantity of the flesh of oxen received daily, by each Egyptian warrior, is
mentioned. According to 2. 69, even crocodile’s flesh was eaten by the
inhabitants of Elephantine; but the most important passage is 2. 37, where it is
said that the Egyptian priests receive each day a large portion of flesh.[37]
Even Porphyry[38] himself merely says, that at certain times the Egyptian
priests abstain from animal food. In this state of things we scarcely need to
take the trouble to mention, that upon the monuments, in kitchen scenes and the
delineation of feasts, animal food appears in abundance.[39] [35] In den Ideen,
Aegypten, S. 170.

[36] In der Weltgeschichte, 1, I. S. 763.

[37]Καὶ κρεῶν καὶ χηνέων πλῆθός τι ἑκάστῳγίνεται πολλὸν ἡμέρες ἑκάστης.

[38] In Schmidt, p. 62.

[39] Wilk. Vol. II. p. 368.There is in the Egyptian room of the British Museum,
a stand on which are the remains of some of the animals cooked for an Egyptian
feast, in a wonderful state of preservation. Rosellini has given a
representation of an Egyptian kitchen, which was probably attached to a palace ;
the servants are represented as slaughtering and cutting up a great variety of
animals, under the superintendence of the head-cook, who appears, even in the
age of the Pharaohs, to have been a person of importance.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 05.     THE WINDS OF EGYPT.
========================================================================

The Winds of Egypt.

“The author,” we read further in v. Bohlen,[40] “mistakes so materially with
regard to the natural phenomena of the country, that he transfers there the
scorching east wind of Palestine,” Genesis 41:6, and represents the ebb in the
Red Sea as produced by this same wind. In his commentary[41] on the passage
above referred to, it is said, When there is a cool and refreshing east wind
along the Arabian Gulf in Egypt, it is cut off from the Nile by the eastern
mountain range, the Mokattam, and cannot even press in, much less then scorch
the ears of corn.[42] On the contrary, it is the south which is the hot wind in
Egypt.[43] A similar error is found in Exodus 16:13, where the locusts should be
represented as coming with the south wind out of Nubia.

[40] S. LVI.

[41] S. 381.

[42] Abdollatiph, p. 16. Hasselquist, 254.

[43]Abdollatiph, p. 19.

We will first examine Genesis 41:6,[44] where the seven thin ears, and “blasted
with the east wind,” are mentioned.

[44] Compare verses 23, 27 of the same chap. The quotation from Abdollatiph, by
which it is said to be proved, that there is no east wind in Egypt, is not
conclusive. That author himself shows[45] that he does not intend to be
understood as speaking of all of Egypt, and particularly not of the part with
which we are here concerned, the Delta: “For this reason without doubt the
ancient Egyptians chose for the residence of their kings, Memphis and the places
which like Memphis are most remote from the eastern mountains.”

[45] P. 5. De Sacy.

It is conceded, that there is seldom a wind directly from the east or west in
Egypt.[46] But there is oftentimes a southeast wind, which is precisely the one
to produce the effects which are here ascribed to the east wind; and besides, it
blows commonly at the time in which these things are understood to have taken
place, before the corn harvest, which in Egypt is in March and April.[47] [46]
Rüppell in Ukert, S. 113.

[47] Nordmeier calend. Aeg. oecon. p. 29.From the unpublished journal of a
traveller at present in Egypt, the following extract may be taken, in
confirmation of whatHenstenberghas stated : “I thought that the south wind was
intolerable, but it has veered round several points to the east this morning,
and every change it makes in that direction renders its effects more and more
oppressive.”

Ukert[48] thus sums up the accounts of modern travellers with regard to the east
wind: “In the spring the south wind oftentimes springs up towards the
south-east, increasing to a whirlwind, etc. The heat then seems insupportable,
although the thermometer does not always rise very high. The south wind is
called Merisi, the south-east, Asiab or Chamsin. As long as the south-east wind
continues, doors and windows are closed, but the fine dust penetrates
everywhere; everything dries up; wooden vessels warp and crack. The thermometer
rises suddenly from 16-20 degrees up to 30, 36, and even 38 degrees of Reaumur.
This wind works destruction upon everything. The grass withers so that it
entirely perishes, if this wind blows long.”

[48]S. 111.

Volney[49] says: “The south and south-east wind produce no dew, since they come
from the African and Arabian deserts. But the north and west winds bring the
evaporations of the Mediterranean to Egypt. In March the south-east, the due
south and the south-west winds prevail. Then they become sometimes westerly and
sometimes northerly and easterly.”

[49] Voyage En Syrie et in Egypte, t. 1. pp. 54, 55. That this south-east
wind[50] is here designated by the word קָדִים which commonly signifies, east
wind, is not surprising, since the Hebrews had terms only for the four principal
winds, and besides, if a more accurate designation had been possible, it would
still have been entirely unsuitable here in relating a dream. But we can even
quote a traveller who does not scruple to designate the south-east as merely the
east. Wansleb[51] says: “From Easter to Pentecost is the most stormy part of the
year; for the wind commonly blows, during this time, from the Red Sea, from the
east.”

[50] Numerous books of travels might be referred to, in which easterly winds in
Egypt are mentioned. But it is unnecessary. Russell, in his Ancient and Modern
Egypt, says: “About the autumnal equinox they (the winds) veer round to the
east, where they remain nearly six weeks, with only slight deviations.” Although
this declaration may not be strictly correct, yet it is an additional testimony
to the fact, that they have easterly winds in Egypt, which is all that is needed
here; for it is universally acknowledged by Hebrew scholars, that any wind from
the eastern quarter of the heavens would be designated by a Hebrew as east wind.
The following extract from Prof. Robinson’s Biblical Researches is introduced,
not only from its appropriateness in this connection, but as furnishing a
similar style of reasoning to that employed byHenstenbergintreating of the
plagues in Egypt, in chapter iii. of this volume : “The Lord, it is said, caused
the sea to go (or flow out) by a strong east wind. The miracle, therefore, is
represented as mediate ; not a direct suspension of, or interference with the
laws of nature, but a miraculous adaptation of those laws to produce a required
result. It was wrought by natural means supernaturally applied. For this reason
we are here entitled to look only for the natural effects arising from the
operation of such a cause. In the somewhat indefinite phraseology of the Hebrew,
an east wind means any wind from the eastern quarter; and would include the
northeast wind, which often prevails in this region.”—Vol. I. pp. 82, 3.

[51]In Paulus Reisen Th. III. p. 18. So much upon Genesis 41:6. We do not
trouble ourselves with Exodus 14, since the assertion, that the east wind is not
the appropriate one, depends upon the arbitrary supposition, that the passage of
the Red Sea took place at the time of the ebb tide. There is therefore now
remaining to us only Exodus 10:13.

V. Bohlen is not the first who has thought the mentioning of the east wind here
a suspicious circumstance. Bochart[52], as long ago as his time, supposed that
קָדִים must in this place signify the south wind, since the east wind could
bring locusts hither only out of Arabia, while the south wind would bring them
from Ethiopia, which produces them in far greater numbers. Eichhorn[53] says:
“Since the locusts, from blind instinct, always move from south to north,
without ever turning to the east or west, their swarms never come out of Arabia
to Egypt, but always from Ethiopia.”

[52] Hieroz. 3. p. 287.

[53] De Aeg. anno mirabili, p. 26.

It is certain, without argument, that the author has here neither used קָדִים
with the signification of south wind, nor inadvertently named the east, where
the south should be; but that, on the contrary, with clear knowledge of the
natural relations of Egypt, he meant to say, that the locusts came hither from
the east, from the Arabian Gulf. This is clear from Exodus 10:19 : “And the Lord
turned a mighty, strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and cast them
into the Red Sea.” The west wind, which is expressly represented as the opposite
of קָדִים, carries the locusts directly back to the region whence they came.

It cannot, therefore, be asserted that the author betrays himself, and
incautiously transfers a condition which belongs to Palestine to Egypt. But it
is yet asked, Can the locusts possibly come to Egypt from the east, from beyond
the Arabian Gulf? The argument which Eichhorn urges against this, that the
locusts always travel from south to north, is not tenable. Credner,[54] who in
his commentary on Joel decidedly substantiates the correctness of the statement
in our passage, has shown that they come with every wind. It also can be no
objection to this opinion, that the swarm coming from the east must pass the
Arabian Gulf. For Credner[55] has shown, that the flight of the locusts is
successfully made, not merely over smaller channels, as the Straits of
Gibraltar, the Red Sea,[56] etc., but over larger bodies of water, as the
Mediterranean Sea, in case they are favored by the wind. As soon as this fails
them, changing to a storm, or when a calm succeeds, the whole numberless swarm
is precipitated into the sea, just as it here occurred after the locusts had
accomplished the work of the Lord upon the Egyptians.

[54] S. 286.

[55] S. 288.

[56] Niebuhr remarks that, the wind drives the swarms of the locusts over the
Arabian Gulf in its broadest part. Beschr. S. 169.

If it is true, that the locusts come from the east not less than from the south,
and that the sea is no hindrance to them, and if it is further settled that
Arabia is one of the principal places, where the locusts are found, it is also
certain that they come from there to Egypt not less than from Nubia. A single
case of this kind, a plague of locusts of peculiar severity, which came from the
east upon Egypt, is described by a Syrian writer, the continuator of
Barhebraeus:[57] “In the year 1774,[58] (1463, A.D.) many locusts came from the
east. They advanced even to Egypt, destroyed the crops,” etc.

[57] In dem neuen Repert. von Paulus, Th. I. S. 67.Mirkhond, in his account of
the Saracenic wars, says that the Arabs were contemptuously called
“locust-eaters” by the Greeks and Persians; a clear proof that locusts are
abundant in the Arabian peninsula. The Egyptian agriculturists at the present
day believe that the most destructive locusts come from Arabia, which is in some
degree confirmed by Dr Bowring in his Report on Syia.

[58] This refers to the Grecian era, or era of the Seleucidae, which dates from
the reign of Seleucus Nicator 311 B.C.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 06.     THE CULTIVATION OF THE VINE IN EGYPT.
========================================================================

The Cultivation of the Vine in Egypt.

Ignorance of the condition of Egypt is also said to appear in the dream of the
chief butler of Pharaoh.[59] In reference to this, v. Bohlen[60] remarks: “An
important specification of time for the late origin of the narrative, is
contained here in the dream of the butler, in which the existence of the vine in
Egypt is implied. For, after Psamaticus, consequently just about the time of
Josiah, had its cultivation first been commenced, in a small degree, and could,
in a low country, which at the time of the ripening of the grape is overflowed,
find entrance only at some few points. The Egyptians used for drink a kind of
beer, in speaking of which, Herodotus explicitly adds that no vines grow in the
land. Among the orthodox Egyptians it is considered as the blood of Typhon. They
did not drink it, says Plutarch, before the time of Psamaticus, and they also
did not offer it in sacrifice.”

[59]Genesis 40:10, seq.

[60] S. 373.

Tuch[61] shares with v. Bohlen unbounded regard for every disconnected saying of
Plutarch, which, if we take into view the whole character of this writer,
appears to have very poor foundation. He also, as well as the author before
mentioned, has no regard to the information which the monuments have furnished,
since the beginning of this century, upon the question concerning the
cultivation of the vine in Egypt. He does not even seem to have noticed that
which Heeren has adduced from the Description of the French scholars.[62] In
vindication of the author of the book of Genesis, he assumes that there is no
mention made of wine in the passage, but of drinking the newly expressed,
unfermented, unintoxicating juice of the grape. The procedure described in the
chapter supposes an evasion, consequently the continued existence of the
prohibition of wine, and an observance of this prohibition; and it is an escape
from a difficulty which besides him, Rosenmueller has also borrowed from J. D.
Michaelis,[63] for whom it was exceedingly convenient, but yet it is nothing
more than an escape from difficulty. It rests upon the fact that one does not
pay attention to what passes in dreaming, and it does not take into account that
the words, “I took the grapes and pressed them into Pharaoh’s cup,” if they are
separated from their connection with the dream, show a procedure in the
preparation of the royal drink, which has nowhere else any analogy. Besides, the
employment of cup-bearer, as a distinguished office at court, could scarcely
exist, where the drink and its preparation are so extraordinarily simple—the
latter such as is elsewhere practised only by children. Still further, if the
passage in Plutarch be allowed to have any force, we cannot even by this
explanation free ourselves from difficulty. For, according to Plutarch, wine was
considered by the Egyptians as the blood of Typhon, inasmuch as it was the
product of the vine, and not in consequence of its having previously undergone a
fermentation.

[61] In dem Comm. zur Genesis, S. 513.

[62] Ideen, Aegypt. S. 362. The full title of this Work, which is so often
quoted byHenstenbergas the Description, is, “Description Deuteronomy 1’Egypte,
ou Recueil des Observations et des Recherches pendant l’Expédition de l’Armée
Française.” It consists of 25 volumes, with more than 900 engravings and 3000
sketches. The last number appeared in 1826. It is composed of the documents
prepared by the eminent savans and artists who accompanied Bonaparte in his
expedition to Egypt. It was printed at the expense of the French Government, and
“corresponds in the grandeur of its proportions," says a writer in the Am. En.,
“to the edifices which it describes.”

[63]Mos. Laws, Vol. III. p. 120.

Even the accounts of ancient authors permit us not to doubt, that from the most
ancient times, the vine was cultivated in Egypt. Herodotus in many ways
contributes to this proof. Thus, according to him, dried grapes appear among the
things which are placed in the body of the bullock offered to Isis, together
with bread, honey, etc.[64] The grapes can only have reference to the domestic
culture of the vine. Also the identification of Osiris with Bacchus in
Herodotus[65] is an argument for the origin of the cultivation of the vine in
Egypt. Bacchus and wine stood, at least according to the popular idea which is
all that is here important, in indissoluble union. Diodorus,[66] in like manner,
not only asserts the identity of Osiris and Bacchus, but also expressly
attributes to Osiris the discovery of the art of cultivating the vine.[67] “But
it is said that he first discovered the vine near Nysa, and after having
acquired skill in the management of its fruit, first made use of wine himself,
and taught other men the planting of the vine-stock, the gathering of the
grapes, the drinking of wine, and its preservation.” But the authority of
Diodorus is of itself sufficient to outweigh that of Plutarch. Further,
according to Hellanicus in Athenaeus, the cultivation of the vine was first
discovered in the Egyptian city Plinthinus.[68] But these passages of ancient
authors have no longer much interest for us, since we have upon the monuments a
testimony for the origin of the culture of the vine in Egypt far more sure, and
sufficient in itself. How little that assertion of Herodotus[69] agrees with
these was first remarked in the Description.[70] Since then, the proofs from the
monuments for the cultivation of the vine have very much multiplied, and the
fact may now, since the appearance of Champollion’s Letters and the Works of
Rosellini and Wilkinson, be considered as fully settled. According to
Champollion there are found in the grottoes of Beni Hassan, “representations of
the culture of the vine, the vintage, the bearing away and the stripping off of
the grapes, two kinds of presses, the one moved merely by the strength of the
arms, the other by mechanical power, the putting up of the wine in bottles or
jars, the transportation into the cellar, the preparation of boiled wine,”[71]
etc. Rosellini[72] has a separate section on grape gathering and the art of
making wine.

[64]“Quae pertinent,” remarks Creuzer, Comm. 1. p. 115, “ad frumenta inventa
vitesque cultas,” etc.

[65] 2. 42 and 144.

[66] In Book I. chap. 11.

[67] 1. 15.

[68] Compare this and other passages quoted in Jablonski, Opusc. II. p. 119 seq.
1. 432, 72.

[69]2. 77.

[70] T. 6. p. 124. ed. Pancret. It is there said: “Among the numerous details
given by Herodotus concerning the diet of the Egyptians, this is found: As they
have not the vine, they drink beer (2. 77). Our paintings prove, conclusively,
that the Egyptians cultivated the vine, and also made wine. Many critics have
previously remarked, that this observation of Herodotus wants accuracy.”

[71] 8.51.

[72] Vol. II. 1. p. 365 et seq.

“Numerous,” says he, “are the representations in the tombs, which relate to the
cultivation of the vine, and these are found, not merely in the tombs of the
time of the 18th and some later dynasties, but also in those which belong to the
time of the most ancient dynasties.” “The described pictures,”[73] it is said,
“show more decidedly than any ancient written testimony, that in Egypt, even in
the most ancient times, the vine was cultivated and wine made.” In the
inscriptions of the time of the Pharaohs, at least seven different kinds of wine
are represented, among which is the wine of Lower Egypt and the wine of Upper
Egypt.[74]Wilkinson[75] gives the engraving and description of an Egyptian
vineyard, and the different kinds of labor bestowed on it. In a painting[76]
from Thebes, boys are seen frightening away the birds from the grape clusters.
In one from Beni Hassan, the kids appear which are allowed to browse upon the
vines after the vintage. The substance of what is communicated by Rosellini and
Wilkinson, with the necessary plates, can be found in Taylor.[77]

[73] Page 373.

[74]Page 377.

[75]Vol. II. p. 143 et seq.

[76] Page 149.

[77] Page 48 et seq.In the passage to which the author refers, I have given
representations of a vineyard, and of various kinds of wine-presses. Here I may
add, that grapes do not appear to have been very abundant in the valley of the
Nile; for the crushed pulp which remained after the grapes were trodden in the
press, instead of being thrown away, as is usual in most wine-growing countries,
was carefully collected by the Egyptians, and placed in a bag, made of flags or
rushes, in which the palp was compressed, by twisting the end of the bag with
staves or handspikes. Even after it had undergone this process, the pulp was
deemed too valuable to be thrown away, and the pressure on the bag was
increased, by some of the workmen throwing their whole weight on it, until every
drop of the precious fluid was squeezed out. Mirhaud (Con. d’Orient) says, that
the clusters and grapes are very small in Egypt; and this explains the surprise
of the spies at the enormous produce of the vines in southern Palestine. The
assertion of Herodotus, that there is in Egypt no vine, must be considered as an
entire mistake. The attempt made first by Dupuy[78] and Larcher,[79] finally
also by Bähr, to rescue his authority, without disparaging the witnesses who
attest the existence of the cultivation of the vine in ancient Egypt, by saying
that Herodotus speaks only of a part of Egypt, the cultivated part, has been
already set aside as inadmissible by Rosellini. “Certainly,” says he,[80]
“Herodotus speaks only of fertile Egypt, but only there could the vine be
cultivated, and most certainly was cultivated. The remainder was either desert
or swamp.”[81] [78] In the Mem. de I. Acad. d. Inscr. t. 31. Hist. p. 20.

[79] Upon Herod. 2. p. 333.

[80] Page 374.

[81] Even Bähr says, in remarking upon the words,ὁι μὲν περὶτὴν σπερομένην
Λὶγυπτον οἰκέουσι, in the beginning of C. 77. B. II: “Est enim Aegyptus ad
Nili utramque ripam sita per aliquot dierum itinera fertilis frugibusque
colendis apta, quam rustici incolae habitant; quaesequuntur regiones pastorum
potius sunt atque nomadum neque frugum capacea.” See also Heeren, S. 146 ff. The
many representations on the monuments of wine-offerings, which the kings present
to the gods, show how little reliance is to be placed on the assertion of
Plutarch, that before the time of Psamaticus wine was neither offered nor made
use of as drink.[82] This is one of those numerous fabrications, by which the
Egyptians attempt to give astonished foreigners an idea of the nobility and
piety of their ancestors. Even Herodotus does not think of anything at all like
this. If wine had been considered as the blood of Typhon, how could it be
explained, that even in his time, the priests received a regular allowance of
wine.[83]Their practice would surely have corresponded to their theology, if
indeed the kings and the people had been led astray by Grecian customs.

[82] Comp. Ros. S. 376. Wilk. II. p. 164 et seq. According toWilkinson, p. 168,
men are seen in the sculptures who, unable to walk from excess in drinking, are
carried home from a feast by servants. For proof, that the prohibition of wine
and other intoxicating drinks to the priests who were to perform the service of
the sanctuary, in Leviticus 10, v. 8 seq., was not inappropriate among a people
who had come from Egypt, where both wine and other intoxicating drinks were much
loved, see Wilk. Vol. III. p. 172 seq.

[83] Comp. 2. 37. When v. Bohlen asserts, that the vine could not have found
entrance into Egypt, except at some few points, on account of the inundation, we
can against this refer to Michaud among others, who says, vines flourish in
Egypt in the water like water-plants.[84] And when J. D. Michaelis alleges, that
the Delta is in August and September, the months of the wine-harvest, entirely
overflowed,[85] we, in opposition to him, refer to Hartmann,[86] according to
whom the grape-gathering takes place in part even in July, and is finished in
August, while the inundation, as a general thing, does not begin until the end
of August, and never before the middle of that month.[87]

[84] T. 7, der Correspondenz aus dem Orient. p. 12. Compare also concerning the
cultivation of the vine in the Delta, Hartmann, Aegypten, S. 187.

[85] See passage above referred to.

[86] Page 214-215.

[87] Page 118.

We add here, in conclusion, an explanation from Egyptian antiquity, of some
objections, which, although they have not yet been, easily might be made to the
credibility of the Pentateuch.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 07.     THE ORIGIN OF CIVILIZATION IN EGYPT.
========================================================================

The Origin of Civilization in Egypt.

It has often been confidently affirmed in modern times, that colonization and
civilization descended from Ethiopia down the Nile to Egypt. From this view one
can hardly avoid a certain suspicion of the notices respecting Egypt in the
Pentateuch. Already, in Abraham’s time, we find the seat, not of a, but of the
flourishing Egyptian kingdom in Lower Egypt, whither colonization and
civilization could scarcely, at that time, have been carried. Zoan or Tanis in
the Delta appears in Numbers 13:23, as one of the oldest cities in Egypt. But
this position is entirely hypothetical, and its inadmissibility, as is now more
and more acknowledged, appears, even when we for the present leave the
Pentateuch, out of the account. From antiquity arises a distinguished witness,
Herodotus, who[88] derives the civilization of Ethiopia from the deserters from
the army of Psamaticus. Among the moderns, Jomard[89] has most thoroughly
confuted this position. “Nubia,” he remarks, “consists almost entirely of barren
rocks. Such a land, where the most urgent wants of man can only be supplied with
the utmost exertion, is not the cradle of the fine arts. Accordingly the
majority of French travellers have not embraced the opinion, that the arts have
descended further and further from the mountains of Ethiopia.” “So soon as I
received information of the true character of the antiquities of Nubia, when I
in the pictures and sculptures saw the same objects which are represented on the
monuments of Thebes, it was clear to me, that most of the monuments of Nubia are
far later than those of Thebes, and by no means served as models for them. The
climate is different in the two lands, the productions of the vegetable kingdom
are not the same, the most distinguished plants which the Egyptian artists have
so often represented,—the lotus, the papyrus, the vine, etc., are not found in
this high region, and the reed and the date tree but seldom. The arts, already
cultivated and perfected, could have been brought to these shores, but their
inhabitants could not have transplanted the arts, for which their country
offered no natural type, to the shores of the Lower Nile.” Wilkinson[90]
represents the hypothesis of the origin of culture in Ethiopia as entirely
exploded by modern investigations. The specimens of art which remain in Ethiopia
are not merely inferior in conception to those of Egypt, but bear far less the
stamp of originality. He thinks it probable, though not demonstrable, that
civilization was carried from Thebes to Lower Egypt. He declines, however, the
task of defending this hypothesis with those who oppose him. It seems almost as
if this asserted probability were founded entirely upon a misconception, namely,
upon the circumstance that the monuments of Upper Egypt, in consequence of their
situation, are in a far better state of preservation than those of Lower Egypt,
where even the traces of them are for the most part obliterated. We are much too
readily disposed to consider that a thing, which now appears noble in the ruins,
was originally the most noble and ancient.[91]

[88] 2. 30.

[89] In the Descript. of the Scholars who accompanied the French Expedition into
Egypt, t. 9. p. 163 et seq.

[90] Vol. I. p. 4.

[91]The best account of the Ethiopian monuments is given by Hawkins: from the
representations he has given of the principal remains, it cannot be doubted that
the civilization of the Thebaid reached a higher degree of perfection than that
of Nubia, and that the best of the Nubian edifices were of later construction
than the best of the Egyptian.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: 08.     THE USE OF IRON IN EGYPT.
========================================================================

The Use of Iron in Egypt.

One further difficulty: according to Genesis 4:22, Tubal-cain was the father of
all forgers of brass and iron. Against the working of iron so early, it might be
argued, that among the ancient Egyptians, all implements in common use, weapons,
household-furniture, instruments, were made of copper hardened by an alloy of
tin. But, on the other hand, Wilkinson[92] remarks: “The constant employment of
bronze arms and implements is not a sufficient argument against their knowledge
of iron, since we find the Greeks and Romans made the same things of bronze long
after the period when iron was universally known.” From the great proficiency in
metallurgy in Egypt, it cannot be supposed, that the art of working iron was
unknown. The extensive use of brass (it is not to be overlooked that also in our
passage brass occupies the first place) must be first on account of the greater
ease of procuring and working it. The same author[93] says, that it is scarcely
supposable, that without tempered iron the hieroglyphics could have been cut
deep into hard granite and basaltic rocks. But there is a yet stronger argument
for the use of iron in ancient Egypt from Herodotus,[94] who, after relating how
great an expense the support of the laborers on the Pyramids of Cheops
occasioned, remarks: “How immense, therefore, must have been the sum which was
expended on the iron with which they worked,” unquestionably implying that the
Egyptians, even in this early age, made use of iron as they did in his own time.
Upon the sculptures in Thebes, Wilkinson[95] also found battle-axes, which, if
we may judge from their color, were of steel. By these remarks, the other
passages[96] of the Pentateuch, in which iron implements are mentioned, are
vindicated at the same time with those which have been noticed.

[92]Vol. III. 245. Compare also 246.

[93] Vol. I. p. 60.

[94] Book 2. 124.

[95] Vol. I. p. 324. Compare, concerning other probable indications of the
existence of iron on the sculptures of the early Pharaohs, Vol. III. p. 247
(241-55); and concerning the use of iron generally in ancient Egypt, Rosellini,
II. 2. p. 301 seq.

[96]Numbers 35:16,Deuteronomy 3:11;Deuteronomy 4:10;Deuteronomy 27:5. The
problem of our negative part is solved.[97] We have, we hope, conclusively
proved, that Egyptian antiquity furnishes no evidence against the Books of
Moses. By this, much is already gained. Were the Pentateuch really, what
according to the views of modern criticism it must be, such evidence would
necessarily appear against it, since the events narrated, so many of them,
transpired on Egyptian ground. The negative part, therefore, acquires no
inconsiderable positive importance. It now belongs to us, in the positive part,
to inquire what evidence Egyptian antiquity furnishes in favor of the Books of
Moses.

[97] We have reserved the consideration of some objections which might seem
appropriate here, for the positive portion of our work, because, in the cases
referred to, the positive element predominated over the negative.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: 09. POSITIVE PART
========================================================================

Positive Part


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: 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.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: 11.     CHAPTER II: EXODUS, CHAPTERS I-VII.
========================================================================

Chapter II: Exodus, Chapters I-VII. The Fears of Pharaoh and His Severity to the
Israelites. In Exodus 1:10, Pharaoh says to his people: “Come on, let us deal
wisely with them, (the people of the children of Israel,) lest they multiply,
and it come to pass that when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our
enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.” These words
are spoken perfectly in accordance with the state of things in Egypt. Fruitful
and cultivated Egypt has for its natural enemies the inhabitants of the
neighboring deserts, and it is never in greater peril than when these enemies
find allies among its own inhabitants. The history of the Arabian Bedawîn in
Egypt shows how very confident the Egyptian king might be that he had ground for
his fears, and that he must make regulations in accordance with them. Of these
Bedawîn Prokesch[283] says: “They made common cause with the Arabs against the
communities who possessed the land, and who were the enemies of the Arabs as
soon as the latter became themselves land-tillers. They fought against the
Saracen dynasty in Egypt, against the Turkomans as soon as they had acquired the
ascendancy, against the Memlook Sultans who were the successors of the
Turkomans, and they have been at war with the Osmanlies without intermission,
since they first set foot upon Egypt more than three hundred years ago.”

[283] Erinnerungen aus Aeg. und Kleinas. Th. 2. S. 231. The measures which
Pharaoh adopted for the oppression of the Israelites are entirely in accordance
with the spirit of the Pharaohs, whose proud severity against hated and despised
foreigners knew no bounds. According to Diodorus,[284] Sesostris placed upon all
his buildings erected by captives an inscription showing, that no native
citizens had been engaged in this servile employment. According to Pliny,[285]
Sesostris harnessed captive kings to his chariot.[286] Upon the sculptures, in
the temple at Medeenet Haboo, representing the triumphal return of Remeses III,
after his conquests in the Eastern war, three captives appear tied under the
axle of his chariot, while others bound by ropes walk by the side of his horses
as an offering to the deity of the place.[287] According to Exodus 1:14, Pharaoh
embittered the life of the Israelites with hard bondage in mortar and brick. We
see from Exodus 5:7,[288] that straw was used in the preparation of these
bricks. 1. We have already shown that the use of brick was very general in
Egypt, as is here implied.[289] 2. Bricks were made in Egypt under the direction
of the king or some privileged person as appears from the impressions found upon
many of them.[290] A great multitude of strangers were constantly employed in
the brick fields of Thebes and other parts of Egypt. 2. But the most remarkable
agreement with the Pentateuch is in the fact, that a small portion of chopped
straw is found in the composition of the Egyptian bricks. This is evident from
an examination of those brought by Rosellini from Thebes on which is the stamp
of Thothmes IV., the fifth king of the eighteenth dynasty.[291] “The bricks,”
remarks Rosellini,[292] “which are now found in Egypt, belonging to the same
period, always have straw mingled with them, although in some of those that are
most carefully made, it is found in very small quantities.” According to
Rosellini, straw was used in order that the bricks, (they were not for the most
part burned, but dried in the sun,) might be more firm, especially those of
coarse clay and more roughly formed. Prokesch[293] says, “The bricks (of the
first pyramid at Dashoor) are of fine clay from the Nile mingled with chopped
straw. This intermixture gives the bricks an astonishing durability.” The
inquirer will not leave unnoticed such little and entirely undesigned
circumstances as these.

[284] 1. 56.

[285] 33. 15.

[286] Sesostri Aegypti rege tam superbo, ut prodatur annis quibusque sorte reges
singulos e subjectis jungere ad currum solitus, atque ita triumphare. Diodorus
also relates the same thing, 1. 58.

[287] Wilkinson 1. p. 106 and plate.

[288] Luther has incorrectly translated in chap. 5:7: That they might burn
brick, from which the false opinion might easily arise that the straw served as
fuel. It should be: Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick with,
etc.

[289] See p. 1—Also concerning the use of brick in Egypt, Quatremère de Quincy,
état de l’Architect, Egypt, p. 64. seq.

[290] Wilkinson II. 97.

[291] Ros. II. 2. p. 252.

[292] II. 2. p. 259.

[293] In der Erinn. Th. 2. S. 31.

We are carried much farther by the comparison of our history with a picture
discovered in a tomb at Thebes, of which Rosellini[294] first furnished a
drawing and an explanation: “Explanation of a picture representing the Hebrews
as they were engaged in making brick.” We will first give an abstract of the
account of Rosellini. “Of the laborers,” says he, “some are employed in
transporting the clay in vessels, some in intermingling it with the straw,
others are taking the bricks out of the form and placing them in rows, still
others with a piece of wood upon their backs and ropes on each side carry away
the bricks already burned or dried. Their dissimilarity to the Egyptians appears
at the first view; the complexion, physiognomy and beard permit us not to be
mistaken in supposing them to be Hebrews. They wear at the hips the apron which
is common among the Egyptians, and there is also represented as in use among
them a kind of short trowsers after the fashion of the מִכְנְסְיםMiknesim. Among
the Hebrews, four Egyptians, very distinguishable by their mien, figure and
color, are seen; two of them, one sitting and the other standing, carry a stick
in their hand ready to fall upon two other Egyptians, who are here represented
like the Hebrews, one of them carrying on his shoulder a vessel of clay, and the
other returning from the transportation of brick, carrying his empty vessel to
get a new load. The tomb belonged to a high court-officer of the king,
Rochscerê, and was made in the time of Thothmes IV, the fifth king of the
eighteenth dynasty. The question, “How came this picture in the tomb of
Rochscerê?” Rosellini answers as follows: “He was the overseer of the public
buildings and had, consequently, the charge of all the works undertaken by the
king. There are found represented therein still other objects of a like nature;
two collossal statues of kings, a sphinx and the laborers who hewed the
stone,—works which he by virtue of his office had caused to be performed in his
life-time.

[294] II. 2. p. 254 seq. To the question, “How came the representation of the
labors of the Israelites at Thebes?” it is answered: “We need not suppose that
the labors were performed in the very place where they are represented, for
Rochscerê was overseer of the royal buildings throughout the land, and what was
done in the circuit of his operations, could, wherever performed, be represented
in his tomb at Thebes. It is also not impossible that the Hebrews went even to
Thebes. In Exodus 5:12, it is said, that they scattered themselves through the
whole land of Egypt in order to procure straw. So far Rosellini. The agreement
of this painting with our account in many very striking points, appears at first
view. We, consequently, select from them only two.

1. It is said in the narrative, the Israelites were subjected to severe labor in
mortar and brick. Just so this servile labor appears throughout the painting as
twofold, some are employed upon the clay from which the bricks were made, and
some upon the finished brick. 2. We have in this painting an explanation with
regard to the Egyptians who accompanied the Israelites in their Exodus. Of these
Egyptians we read, first, in Exodus 12:38, “And also a great rabble
(עֵרֶברַבereb rab) went up with them.” In Numbers 11:4, “The mixed Egyptian
populace (הָֽאסַפְסֻףhasphuph) led astray the Israelites in the desert to
discontentment.” In Deuteronomy 29:10-11—let it be observed how accurately these
remote and disconnected passages agree with each other—the Egyptian aliens
appear as very poor, as the lowest servants, as hewers of wood and drawers of
water. The designations rabble and populace in the first passages, also show,
that these attendants of the Israelites belonged to the lowest grades of
society. Just such people we should naturally expect to find in Egypt. Their
existence is the necessary consequence of strongly marked castes in society. The
monuments indeed place vividly before us most manifest distinctions in station.
A part of the people appear to be in the deep degradation which now presses upon
the Fellahs.[295] According to Herodotus[296] the caste of swine-herds, a native
tribe, was unclean and despised in Egypt. All intercourse with the rest of the
inhabitants, even entrance into a temple, was forbidden, and they were as much
despised as the Farias in India.”[297] The contempt in which they were held was
not certainly the consequence of their occupation, but their occupation of the
disdain which was felt for them. Already unclean, they had no reason for
avoiding the care of unclean animals. But full light first falls upon these
notices of the Pentateuch through our painting. We see upon it Egyptians who are
placed entirely on an equality with the hated and despised foreigners. What is
more natural than that a considerable part of these Egyptians, bound close to
their companions in sorrow by their common misery, should leave with them their
native land, such now to them only in name.[298] [295] Wilk. Vol. I. p. 285.

[296] B. 2. c. 47.

[297] Heeren, S. 150.

[298] Compare upon the bondmen of Egypt, who like the Helots in Sparta, were in
ignominious servitude, Böckh, Erklärung Einer Aeg. Urkunde S. 27, 28. Many
reasons render it very probable that the Pharaoh who tyrannized over the
Israelites in the age of Moses, was not a native Egyptian, but a foreign
conqueror, probably belonging to the intrusive dynasty of the Hyksos. He is
described as “another, or an alien king, who knew not Joseph;” and it would be
hard to believe that any native prince could be ignorant of the advantages which
the Egyptian monarch and people derived from the administration of that
patriarch. He is represented as saying, “The people of the children of Israel
are more and mightier than we;” it is very possible that a warlike race of
conquerors, such as the Hyksos of old, or the Turks of modern times, might be
inferior in number even to the least division of the races subject to their
sway, but it is utterly improbable that the Israelites should have multiplied so
fast in the land of Goshen, as to exceed in number all the inhabitants of Egypt.
One of the labours which he imposed upon the Israelites, was, to erect “treasure
cities,” that is, fortresses to secure his plunder: Joseph took no such
precaution when he received all the money of Egypt in exchange for corn, but of
course it became necessary under the iron rule of a foreign conqueror. Finally,
we find this Pharaoh actually proposing to Moses to violate the laws and customs
of Egypt, by sacrificing the sacred animals within their land. The remonstrance
of the Jewish legislator is, as we shall see, very appropriate when addressed to
a foreigner, but scarcely within the bounds of credibility if we suppose that
any such speech could be made to a native prince. “And Pharaoh called for Moses
and for Aaron, and said, Go ye, sacrifice to your God in the land. And Moses
said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the
Egyptians to the Lord our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the
Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us? We will go three days’
journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the Lord our God, as he shall
command us.” (Exodus 8:25-27.)

He who has carefully examined the engraving in Rosellini, the great importance
of which has been acknowledged by such historians as Heeren,[299] perceiving its
striking accordance with the Pentateuch, will ask first of all, whether then
this picture is really genuine, whether it is not probably a supposititious
work, prepared after the Pentateuch was written. This question, almost
sufficiently answered by the condition of the painting itself, is, by the
judicious Wilkinson, who made a new examination on the spot, decided entirely in
favor of the picture. This decision is the more to be relied on, since
Wilkinson,[300] while he questions whether the painting has direct reference to
the labors of the Israelites, does not deny the significance of it for the
Pentateuch. But the arguments with which he contends against its referring to
Israelites, are of so little importance, that we can scarcely avoid thinking
that he is influenced by something foreign from the thing itself; and they are
decidedly outweighed by the evident Jewish bearing and cast of physiognomy,
which can be traced even in the common wood cuts such as are found in
Taylor.[301]Wilkinson, first, makes the place where the painting is found, a
matter of importance. That it cannot represent work done in another part of
Egypt, the hieroglyphic inscription shows. According to this, the bricks are
made for a building in Thebes. But at least as given by Rosellini,[302] the
inscription does not so definitely affirm this; and even if it did, what valid
objection is there to the assumption that the Israelites were carried even as
far as Thebes for the sake of their work? That Egypt in all times, even the most
ancient, formed one kingdom, is now, since the witness of the Holy Scriptures in
this respect has received so strong a confirmation from the monuments, generally
acknowledged.[303] It was for the interest of the oppressor to scatter the
Israelites as much as possible through his whole land. Even now, the Fellahs are
often collected in troops from the most remote provinces in Egypt, when any
great work is to be executed. Secondly, the beard is wanting, which is so marked
in the people of Syria on the Egyptian monuments and in the case of the
prisoners of Sheshonk. But in one individual the beard is certainly represented,
and if it is wanting in the case of the others, it is easy to account for it by
supposing that they were compelled to accommodate themselves to Egyptian
customs.[304] There is a plain difference between the Israelites and those just
made captives, who naturally appear upon the monuments in the costume of their
own nation. Thirdly, the argument from Jewish physiognomy is not decisive; for
the Egyptians, who generally did not give the same attention to the countenance
as to costume, weapons, etc., but rather, for the most part, employed a certain
general style of features, for the inhabitants of a particular region,[305] have
adopted the same characteristics for all the inhabitants of Syria, as appears
from the sculptures. Assuming the correctness of this position, which seems to
us very doubtful, would the Egyptians, since the Jewish cast of physiognomy
throughout can by no means be denied, have borrowed the type for the Syrians
generally, from the Jews? This at least is certain, that a people from the
region in which the Israelites dwelt were found in Egypt in the circumstances
represented in the painting, and by a comparison of the picture with the account
of Moses, we should be perfectly justified in the assumption that these persons
were real Israelites.

[299] He says, Gött. Anz. 1835, S. 1328: If this painting represents the
servitude of the children of Israel in these labors, it is equally important for
exegesis and chronology. For exegesis, because it would be a strong proof of the
great antiquity of the Mosaic writings, and especially of the book of Exodus
which in chapters one and five gives a description that applies most accurately
to this painting, even in unimportant particulars. For chronology, since it
belongs to the eighteenth dynasty, under the dominion of Thothmes-Moeris, about
1740 before Christ, and therefore would give a fixed point both for profane and
sacred History.

[300] Vol. II. p. 98 seq: “It is curious,” he remarks, “to discover other
foreign captives occupied in the same manner, overlooked by similar
‘task-masters,’ and performing the very same labors as the Israelites described
in the Bible; and no one can look at the paintings of Thebes, representing
brick-makers, without a feeling of the highest interest.”

[301] p. 79.

[302] II. p. 262. Commendamento, che rechino—i mattoni? verso le construzioni
della divina casa [del tempio] del—Dio.

[303] Compare Plath, Quaestiones Aegypt. Gött. 1829, Rosellini, Wilkinson and
others.

[304] Even Wilkinson, Vol. III. p. 358, says: “Although foreigners 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
heads were shaved,” etc.The Fellahs exhibit the sadness of men accustomed to
suffer, the timidity and fear of wretches who have no refuge or protection. In
vain does the Nile lavishly distribute its treasures, none of them fall to the
share of the peasant. In the midst of all the wonders of fertility, the Fellah
keeps his eyes fixed upon the ground, as if he lived in an accursed country.
There are in Egypt myriads of labourers who reap abundant harvests, and who
never eat anything but herbs, linseed cakes, and boiled beans. The celebrated
Amrú compared the Egyptians to bees working diligently for the advantage of
others, but enjoying no fruit of their toil; and since the days of Amrú, the
condition of the cultivators of Egypt has undergone but little change. An idea
can scarcely be formed of the number of wretched creatures in the villages;
everywhere are seen men almost naked, or covered with rags worse than
nudity,—countenances furrowed with grief—youth in premature sadness—women in
whom misery has effaced the traits of their sex. The traveller in Egypt requires
a very varied vocabulary of expressions to describe the intense misery which is
presented to him at every fresh step, in a new shape. Nevertheless the
population continues to increase, for the happy climate of Egypt seems of itself
sufficient to support life, and supply man’s prime necessities; the most
miserable villages are filled with multitudes of children,—a circumstance
seeming to prove, that there will be always men born to suffer, and that
despotism will never want slaves.—Correspondance d’Orient,V. 73.

[305]Wilkinson I. p. 386.

It is also characteristic of Egypt, when in this same (Exodus 1:14) 14th verse,
it is said that the life of the Israelites was also embittered “through all
manner of service in the field.” There is scarcely a country in which the
cultivation of the land requires so much peculiarly servile labor as in Egypt.
Irrigation especially, is here very laborious.[306] [306] See the more recent
Commentators onDeuteronomy 11:10.

Use of the Papyrus and Bitumen in Egypt.

According to Exodus 2:3, the mother of Moses taking a chest of papyrus smears it
with bitumen and pitch, lays the child in it and puts it down among the reeds on
the shore of the Nile. That the author names the papyrus as the material of the
chest, is a strong argument in his favor. In Egypt, and there only, was the
papyrus employed in the manufacture of many articles of use. Mats, baskets,
sandals and various other things were made of it.[307] Even boats were
constructed of it.[308] The use of the papyrus belongs to the earliest times.
Even in the most ancient sculptures it is found with writing upon it.[309]
Bitumen was one of the principal ingredients in embalming in Egypt.[310] In a
passage in the Travels of Minutoli,[311] giving a description of the “analysis
of the resinous composition of a black shining finger from the body of a mummy”
by John, it is said: “The resinous mass is composed of the pitch-wood mentioned
in a preceding note, and of a kind of bitumen which the Egyptians might have
obtained from the Dead Sea, Babylon, Susa or even from Phoenicia, or at least of
an entirely analogous substance.” John also found bituminous substances in the
embalming materials in connexion with a child-mummy.[312] According to
Rosellini,[313] there have been found in the tomb of Usirei, or Menephthah[314]
many small statues of wood in the form of a mummy, covered with a stratum of
bitumen.[315] That pitch was known at this time in Egypt, we cannot doubt, since
it is found in objects which belong to the oldest times.

[307] Wilkinson, Vol. III. pp. 62, 146.

[308] Herod. 2. 96. Plut. de Is. Et Osir. p. 395; according to which Isis is
borne upon a boat of papyrus. Wilk. Vol. III. p. 61. Ros. II. 3. p. 124.The
papyrus boat in which Moses was exposed, was “daubed with slime and pitch,” that
is, with both mineral and vegetable substances, to serve as caulking. A mineral
tar frequently used for this purpose, is produced on the coasts of the Red Sea;
it is remarkable for its antiseptic properties, and has been successfully used
in the preparation of mummies. A human hand preserved by this substance, may be
seen in the Museum ofthe Royal Asiatic Society; it is so very perfect, that the
shape of the nails, and even the mark of the place where a ring was worn, may be
clearly distinguished.

[309]Wilk. III. 150.

[310] Diod. 19. chap. 99.

[311] S. 373.

[312] S. 344.

[313] Vol. I. 1. p. 249.

[314] Ros. II. 3. p. 350 seq.

[315] Wilk. Vol. III. p. 186. The Daughter of Pharaoh Finds the Child, Moses.

According to Exodus 2:5, the daughter of Pharaoh finds the child, Moses, as,
accompanied by her maidens, she goes to bathe in the Nile. That the women in
Egypt were far less restrained than in the rest of the East, as this fact
implies, we have already shown.[316] That the king’s daughter went to the Nile
to bathe is explained by the Egyptian notion of the sacredness of the Nile. Of
this we shall speak in a subsequent part of this volume. A representation of an
Egyptian bathing scene—a lady with four female servants who attend upon her and
perform various offices, is found in Wilkinson.[317]

[316] P. 26.

[317] Vol. III. p. 389. The Israelites Directed to Borrow of the Egyptians
Ornaments, etc. In Exodus 3:22, and the parallel passage where the Israelitish
women are directed to borrow of their Egyptian neighbors gold and silver
ornaments, it is implied that such ornaments were even then in very general use
among the Egyptians. This has been fully confirmed by late discoveries. On the
monuments, remarks Rosellini,[318] vases of costly metals are found, not merely
in the representations of religious ceremonies and the offerings of kings to the
gods, but also among the objects of household use. Very many such things are
found in the tombs of mere private individuals. Therefore it is clear, that not
the great only, but all who possessed any wealth had such articles among their
household furniture.[319]

[318] II. 2. p. 345.Jewels were anciently used as money, and are sometimes so
employed at the present day ; hence the weight of the jewels given by Abraham’s
steward to Rebekah is specifically recorded, apparently intimating that they
were designed, not only as ornament, but as part of the purchase-money paid for
a wife: “It came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a
golden ear-ring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands often
shekels weight of gold.”Genesis 24:22. That the jewels were thus given as money,
is still more evident from a subseqent verse, describing the payment of
Rebekah’s dowry: “The servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of
gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebekah: he gave also to her brother, and to
her mother, precious things.”Genesis 24:55. These circumstances enable us to
explain the true meaning of a passage, which, from a slight inaccuracy of
translation, has been frequently the object of sceptical cavils. When God,
immediately before the tenth plague, gave Moses directions respecting the
leading out of the Israelites, part of his injunctions was: “Speak now in the
ears of the people, and let every man borrow of his neighbour, and every woman
of her neighbour, jewels of silver and jewels of gold.”Exodus 11:2. The
wordשאל(Shaal)translated “borrow,” literally signifies “ask” or “demand;” and
the “jewels,” as we have seen, were current coin: the meaning then is, that the
Israelites should demand payment of the hire justly due to them for their
labour—a demand with which the Egyptians, terrified by the slaughter of the
first-born, readily complied. Thus this transaction, so frequently represented
as a loan fraudulently obtained, was in fact a simple demand of strict justice.

[319]Wilkinson, Vol. III. p. 223.

Moses’ Rod.

According to Exodus 4:2, Moses carries a rod, and this we find to be afterwards
his inseparable companion. That he follows an Egyptian custom in this, is
evident from Exodus 7:12, where each of the magicians carries his rod. According
to the monuments, the Egyptian nobles generally carried a stick from three to
six feet long when they went out. One of them, preserved to our time, is of
cherry-wood; but they generally preferred, as it appears, the acacia
wood.[320]Egyptian priests and other persons of rank are represented as walking
with sticks.[321] [320] Wilk. III. 386-8.

[321] Wilk. III. 386.

Writing Much Practised in Egypt. The name of the Israelitish officers, which the
task-masters of Pharaoh placed over them, ‍שֹׁמְרִים (Shaterim,) the writers, is
derived from the verb שָּׁמַר (Shater,) to write.[322] This is highly
characteristic of the state of things in Egypt. In no land of the old world was
facility in writing so great, and the materials for writing by any means so
perfect, as in Egypt. “Stone-workers were accustomed,” says Rosellini,[323] “to
engrave upon each square block an inscription in hieroglyphics; an impression
was made upon the bricks, (which besides very frequently bore
inscriptions,)[324]—even oxen were represented, —the steward of the house kept a
written register. They probably wrote more in ancient Egypt, and on more
ordinary occasions, than among us.” “The Egyptians,” says the same author,[325]
“differ specially from all other people, in that they constantly cover the
interior and exterior of their houses, and the walls of all the innumerable
apartments, of their wonderful subterranean burial places with images and
writing.” “Upon the implements, and even garments of the Egyptians, the name of
the owner is frequently wholly or in part inscribed.” “The proper name of the
profession of the men is written upon them on the monuments, the name of animals
upon their representatives, and that of implements of every sort upon the
figures which represent them.” “We must shut our eyes against the clearest
light, if we would deny that the art of reading and writing was generally
studied and practised in ancient Egypt, to as great a degree at least as it now
is among us.” Proof from the monuments is also furnished by Rosellini,[326] that
in judicial transactions, everything was transacted in writing. The scribes, who
meet our eyes wherever we look, act an important part.[327] The judges of the
under-world all carry upon their heads the symbolic pen of truth and
justice.[328] The passion for writing was so incorporated with the business of
Egypt, that even now the last remains of the Egyptians, the Copts, are in
exclusive possession of all secretaries, posts, and as it were, form a nation of
scribes.[329] These Coptic scribes compose a numerous community, with a kind of
hierarchy. These references show, that these and the remaining passages of the
Pentateuch which imply a great extension of the art of writing among the
Israelites in the time of Moses,[330] only make known what cannot have been
otherwise, and thus are a strong confirmation of the narrative. These passages,
so far from witnessing against the Mosaic period, have now become just so many
proofs for the same. The little foundation there is at the present time for the
argument against the authenticity of the Pentateuch, from the non-existence, or
at least the limited diffusion of the art of writing, is shown by such facts as
this, that Salvolini[331] allows that the manuscript of Sallier, containing a
description of the expedition of Remeses the Great against the Scheta and their
allies, was written about the year 1565 before Christ! Whether in this
particular case he is in error or not, is, for our argument, a matter of
indifference. For, it is sufficient that an inquirer so generally esteemed for
discrimination, can suppose such a date possible,—that he did not even consider
it necessary to question whether writing existed at that time in Egypt.

[322] See the arguments for this in Th. II. der Beiträge zur Einl. S. 449 ff.

[323] II. 3. p. 241.

[324] p. 252, 3.

[325] p. 239.

[326] Vol. II. 3. p. 272 seq.

[327] Ros. p. 272 seq.

[328] Ros. II. 500.

[329] See e. g. Girard in the Descr. t. 17. p. 192.

[330] They are found collected in Th. 2. der Beiträge S. 457 ff.

[331] Campagne de Rhamsés, Paris 1835, p. 123.

We will here make some additions to our Essay concerning writing materials in
the Mosaic period.[332] The Egyptians wrote with reddish ink.[333] The common
material on which they wrote was paper made of the papyrus plant, which is found
in great quantities in the common tombs. The great abundance of coarse and fine
paper which, from the dates, belonged to the different dynasties of the
Pharaohs, at least as far back as the 18th, make it certain that the use of
paper in Egypt at the time of Alexander was very old, and therefore refutes the
declarations of Pliny. The Egyptians also wrote with ink and red chalk upon
cloth. We have in our possession, wrappers of mummies of byssos, written over
with the ritual for the dead.[334] They also wrote catalogues, accounts, and
other such like things with ink upon wood, vessels of Terra Cotta, pieces of
lime-stone, etc.[335] Finally, they also wrote on parchment.[336] [332] Th. 2.
der Beiträge, S. 481 ff.

[333] Ros. II. 2. p. 207, with which, in order to call to mind that the use of
ink is implied inNumbers 5:23, compare what was said on this passage, Beiträge,
Th. 2. S. 489.

[334] Ros. p. 227.

[335] Ros. p. 228.

[336] Wilk. Vol. III. p. 152.

Preparation of Stone for Inscriptions. The passage, Deuteronomy 27, according to
which the stones to be written upon were to be first covered with lime, has
already been explained and verified from the antiquities of Egypt.[337] We here
add also, a reference to Wilkinson, Vol. III. p. 300, where the sand-stone of
the Egyptians is said to have had a kind of stucco spread over it before the
paintings were made, and even granite was covered with a similar composition.
Prokesch[338] says: “I saw one, (among the tombs in the pyramids of Dashoor,)
where a red mortar is first laid upon the stone, and then the hieroglyphics and
a figure of the apis are impressed upon this coating.

[337] Beiträge, Th. 2. S. 464.

[338] Erinnerungen aus Aeg. und Kleinas, Th. 2. S. 31. The Bastinado. The scene
in Exodus 5:14, where the officers of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptian
overseers of Pharaoh placed over them, were beaten because those under their
charge had not performed their task in brick-making, is placed vividly before
our eyes in the representation of an Egyptian bastinado in Wilkinson.[339] With
this compare another representation,[340] where “the laborers are stimulated to
work by the persuasive powers of the stick.” The first painting shows
conclusively, that the mode of inflicting stripes described in Deuteronomy 25:2,
(the guilty person is laid down flat upon the ground before the judge and
beaten,) was precisely the Egyptian mode. Wilkinson describes it in the
following words: “Men and boys were laid prostrate on the ground, and frequently
held by the hands and feet, while the chastisement was administered.”[341] [339]
Vol. II. p. 41.

[340] Wilk. II. p. 42.

[341] Compare Rosellini, II. 3. p. 274, and concerning the presence of a
magistrate at the execution of the punishment, the same author, p. 278.From the
monuments, we find that this descent of the bastinado in due subordination was
the established rule of ancient Egypt, which, like modern China, was governed by
the stick. The Moslems, who are well acquainted with its efficacy, have a
favourite proverb, which says, “The stick came down from heaven, a blessing from
God.” The rulers of Egypt in every age have taken care that their subjects
should have full enjoyment of that blessing. Ammianus Marcellinus informs us,
that in his days endurance of the bastinado was a point of honour. “An
Egyptian,” says he, “blushes if he cannot show numerous marks on his body, which
evince his endeavours to evade the taxes.” Matters have not changed much since
his time. “Nothing,” says M. Michaud, “can equal the severity with which the
imposts are levied. I have often seen the fellahs pursued by the merciless
tax-gatherers, who exclaimed, ‘Pay, pay!’’Ma Fich,’(I have nothing,) was the
answer. ‘You must pay,’ retorted the officer, and forthwith a shower of heavy
blows fell on the peasant’s shoulders. The instrument of punishment on these
occasions is a whip, made of the hide of rhinoceros. The fellahs make no doubt
that this whip may claim the most remote antiquity, and that it was used in the
time of the Pharaohs to enforce the payment of these imposts. Crowds of
inspectors, and multitudes of agents, are met everywhere: one-half of the
population seems employed to watch and torment the other. What will surprise you
is, that the tax-gatherers, when convicted of malversation, receive the
bastinado like the fellahs, and are shut up with them in the same prison.” The
Shoterim of the Israelites, the Same as the Modern Sheikh El-Beled.

Analogy, for the taking of officers from the oppressed people themselves, who
are made responsible for the performance of prescribed labor, may be found in
modern Egypt. This same thing is done among the Arab fellahs, whose condition,
under the government of the Turks, as the description of Michaud,[342] for
example, shows, agrees in many respects remarkably with that of the Israelites.
In each village, one of the Arabs, under the title of Sheikh el-Beled, occupies
the place of mediator between the government and the people. He must see that
the men perform the prescribed labor, and collect from them the taxes which the
government imposes upon them. The Sheikh el-Beled is often seen under the stick
of the Kaim-makam, the Kashif or the Mamoor, in the place of some individual of
the common people, of whom he in turn afterwards takes vengeance.[343] [342]
Correspondence, t. 5. p. 254.

[343] Ros. II. 2. p. 257. The Duties of the Shoterim.

Since we are now occupied with the Shoterim, we will also add, that the
position, hitherto not properly understood, which they, according to the
precepts in Deuteronomy 20:1 seq., must have held with reference to warlike
affairs, (they had the care of levying soldiers, and excusing those unable to
perform military service, and they delivered the troops over to the military
chiefs, the “captains of the armies,” in verse Deuteronomy 20:9,) is explained
by the post which the scribes occupy in the same sphere in modern Egypt, and in
all probability the whole institution of the Shoterim, as it is entirely alien
to patriarchal customs, is of Egyptian origin. The scribes in the representation
of Egyptian warlike scenes act an important part. In levying soldiers, for
instance, they write down the names of those who are brought before them by
their commanders.[344] They count, in the presence of the king, the hands of the
slain which have been cut off, and sometimes also their tongues and other
members of the body; they make a statement of the weapons, the horses and the
rest of the booty, and present it to the king,[345] and they perform whatever
such like things there are to be done.

[344] Ros. II. 3. p. 218.

[345] Wilk. I. p. 393. The Arrogance of the Pharaohs. The insolent pride with
which Pharaoh received the message communicated by Moses, as: “Who is Jehovah,
that I should hear his voice, to let Israel go?” “I know not Jehovah and will
not let Israel go,” in Exodus 5:2; the obstinacy which he afterwards exhibits,
when the divine punishments fall upon him, one after another, in deciding to go
to destruction with his land and people, rather than yield, are proved on the
monuments in various ways, to be in accordance with the genuine spirit of a
Pharaoh. A comparison of the representation of the victory of Remeses Meiamun,
in Thebes, explained by Champollion,[346] is of special interest in this
connection. The Pharaoh, it is there said, at whose feet they lay down these
trophies of victory, (the severed right hand and other members of the body,)
sits quietly in his chariot, while his horses are held by his officers, and
directs a haughty speech to his warriors: “Give yourselves to mirth; let it rise
to heaven. Strangers are dashed to the ground by my power. Terror of my name has
gone forth; their hearts are full of it; I appear before them as a lion; I have
pursued them as a hawk; I have annihilated their wicked souls. I have passed
over their rivers; I have set on fire their castles; I am to Egypt what the god
Mandoo[347] has been; I have vanquished the barbarians; Amun Re, my father,
subdued the whole world under my feet, and I am king on the throne forever.” It
is said that we mistake the whole character of Champollion’s work, if we assert
the literal truth of this translation; but the spirit which the speech breathes
may always be recognized from it.

[346] In den. Briefen aus Aeg. p. 227.

[347]“The Pharaohs frequently styled themselves ‘Mandoo towards the Gentiles;’
from which it appears that he was- the avenger or protector against enemies, the
Mars of Egyptian mythology, with the additional title ofUltor,‘avenger,’ like
the Roman- god of war.’—Wilkinson,Vol. II. Sec. Ser. p. 34. The ancient Egyptian
kings named themselves in their pride, Kings of the whole world,[348] and what
is yet more, they in this arrogance claim divine honors for themselves. This can
be proved by a multitude of arguments, of which we will here give only a few.
The Menephtheum at Thebes has a double character,[349] that of a temple and
palace. It is in all its plan destined for the dwelling of a man, and yet it
reminds one by its decorations, of the consecrated residence of a god. Even the
name Pharaoh is a monument of this idea. It cannot be doubted that it designates
the king, as the incarnation of the sun, which the Egyptians named Phre. The
proof of this Rosellini[350] furnishes, relying specially upon the fact that
among the royal emblems, a disk, representing the sun, takes the first place.
This is, accordingly, the first title which all the kings of Egypt bore. Phre
also occurs, Genesis 41:45, in the name of the priest at On or Heliopolis, city
of the sun, Potiphera, that is, consecrated to Phre. This name is also very
common on the Egyptian monuments.[351] [348] Champollion, p. 231.

[349] Champollion, p. 257.

[350] I. 1. p. 115.

[351] See also Wilkinson, Egypt and Thebes, p. 5, note, and Manners and Customs,
Vol. I. p. 43.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: 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.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: 13.     CHAPTER IV: EXODUS, CHAPTERS XIV AND XV.
========================================================================

Chapter IV: Exodus, Chapters XIV and XV. The Military Force of the Egyptians. In
our section on the references of the Pentateuch to the geographical features of
Egypt, we have spoken of some things which come within the range of our inquiry
in connection with these chapters of Exodus. We have pointed out the agreement
of the fact, that a considerable army stood ready at the command of Pharaoh to
pursue the fugitive Israelites, with the declarations of Herodotus, which show
that the principal stations of the military caste were in the vicinity of the
scene of these transactions, in the Delta.[467] It remains for us to make here
the following remarks.

[467] Page 48,57 seq. Compare in reference to this last fact also Rosellini, II.
3. p. 200.

1. “Wherever,” says Rosellini,[468] “the armies are represented on the great
monuments of Egypt, they are composed of troops of infantry, armed with the bow
or lance, and of ranks of chariots drawn by two horses.” Chariots appear also in
Homer[469] as the principal strength of the Egyptian army. Upon the Egyptian
monuments, says the same author,[470] neither a king nor any other person of
consequence is represented in any other way, than on foot, upon a chariot or
throne, or in a litter. The few figures upon horses almost all belong to
foreigners. Wilkinson[471]agrees with Rosellini in the principal point, namely,
that chariots composed the main military force of the Egyptians, and the cavalry
took only a subordinate place. That the Egyptians had no horsemen at all he does
not admit,—although he concedes that no representations of them are found on the
monuments,—relying upon the authority of Herodotus, 2. 162, where Amasis appears
on horseback, (the more important passage, chap. 108, he omits,) the declaration
of Diodorus, according to which Sesostris had, besides 27,000 who fought upon
chariots, also 24,000 horsemen, and the fact that in the hieroglyphics the
“command of the cavalry” is represented as a very honorable post, generally
occupied by the most distinguished among the sons of the king.[472] This last
argument, however, Rosellini[473] attempts to set aside, by remarking that the
designation is properly overseer of horses, and probably has reference to the
care of the breed of horses. Champollion[474] of the war chariots: “This was the
cavalry of the age, cavalry properly speaking did not exist then in Egypt.”

[468] II. 3. p. 232.

[469] Iliad, 9. 383, where it is said of
Thebes:Αἰθʼἐκατόμπυλοίἐισι,διηκόσιοι δʼἀν ἑκάστην Ἀνέρες ἐξοιχνεῦσι
σὺν ἵπποισιν καὶἔχεσφιν.

[470] II. 3. p. 240.

[471] Vol. I. p. 288, 335.

[472] Wilk. Vol. 1. p. 292.

[473] II. 3. S. 259.

[474] Page 442 of the German Translation of his Letters. Brussels Ed. says

It is accordingly certain, that the cavalry, in the more ancient period of the
Pharaohs, was but little relied on, and it is doubtful whether it generally
existed. The question now is: What relation the declarations in our passage have
to this result? Were the common view, according to which riding on horses is
superadded with equal prominence to the chariot of war, in our passage, the
right one, there would arise strong suspicion against the credibility of the
narrative. But a more accurate examination shows, that the author does not
mention Egyptian cavalry at all, that according to him the Egyptian army is
composed only of chariots of war, and that he therefore agrees in a wonderful
manner with the native Egyptian monuments. And this agreement is the more
minute, since the second division of the army represented upon them, the
infantry, could not, in the circumstances of our narrative, take part in the
pursuit. The first and principal passage concerning the constituent parts of the
Egyptian army which pursued the Israelites, is that in Exodus 14:6-7 : “And he
made ready his chariot, and took his people with him; and took 600 chosen
chariots, all the chariots of Egypt and chariot warriors upon all of them.” Here
Pharaoh’s preparation for war is fully described. It consists, first, of
chariots, and secondly of chariot warriors. Cavalry are no more mentioned than
infantry. This passage, which is so plain, explains the second one, Exodus 14:9,
where the arrival of this same army in sight of the Israelites is plainly and
graphically described, in order to place distinctly before the reader the
impression which the view made upon the Israelites: “And the Egyptians followed
them and overtook them, where they were encamped by the sea, all the
chariot-horses of Pharaoh and his riders and his host.” If riders here be
understood in the common sense, (chariot-warriors rather than riders upon horses
might so much the sooner be mentioned, since the Egyptian war-chariot was very
small and light,) where then are the chariot warriors? The author would not
leave them out, since it is to his purpose to be minute, and since he evidently
intended to accumulate circumstances as much as possible. Also in Exodus 14:17 :
“I will get me honor upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots and
upon his riders,” the riders again correspond with the chariot-warriors in
Exodus 14:7. If there were then chariot-warriors and riders, how strange that
they are never spoken of together.[475] In Exodus 14:23 were named, and that
chariot-warriors, who are most important, were left out. Finally, the meaning of
the passage, Exodus 15:1 : “Horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea,” is
clear from Exodus 15:4 of the same chapter, where only the overwhelming of the
chariots and chariot-warriors is spoken of.

[475]In the Illustrations of the Bible from the monuments of Egypt, I took a
different view of this passage, but on further examination, I am convinced that
I was wrong, and that Dr Hengstenberg is right.

2. The number of chosen chariots of Egypt is limited in Exodus 14:6 ( Exodus
14:7) to 600. If we compare with this other declarations with regard to the
strength of the Egyptian hosts of war, we shall be the better prepared to
appreciate these moderate statements, so inappropriate in a mythic
representation. Josephus adds, from his own resources, to the 600 chariots which
Pharaoh brought into the field, 50,000 horsemen and 200,000 footmen. The Jewish
tragic poet, Ezekiel, says that the Egyptian hosts of war amounted to a million.
According to Diodorus,[476] Sesostris had 600,000 footmen, and 24,000 horsemen,
and 27,000 chariots of war. He gives an equally extravagant number in Ezekiel
45:47.[477] It is certain that the 600 chariots are not the whole force with
which Pharaoh pursued the Israelites. Besides, the 600 chosen chariots were also
the chariots of Egypt. But the number of the last must also be fixed according
to the analogy of the first.

[476] 1. 54.

[477] Compare Rosellini, Vol. II. 3. p. 231.

3. The author in Exodus 14:7 makes a difference between the chosen chariots and
the chariots of Egypt. The first evidently compose the guard of the king. We
have already proved the existence of a royal guard in Egypt from Herodotus and
the monuments.[478] From Herodotus:[479] “But they (the warriors) enjoyed these
privileges in turn, never all at once—a thousand of the Calasaries and as many
of the Hermotybies were the yearly guard of the king, and to these was given, in
addition to their land, each day,” etc., it is certain that at least in early
times, these guards changed each year. It is however true, that this must not be
understood as implying that the soldiers all succeeded to this employment,
without selection, in successive divisions; but the rotation took place rather,
only among chosen troops.

[478] Pages 24, 67.

[479] 2. 168.

4. It may perhaps appear remarkable, that the Israelites, notwithstanding their
very great numbers, at the appearance of the not very numerous Egyptian hosts of
war, considered themselves as absolutely lost, and that the thought of
withstanding them did not even occur to them. A remark in Wilkinson[480] assists
in explaining this fact: “The civilized state of Egyptian society required the
absence of all arms except when they were on service.” If the Israelites were
entirely unarmed when they departed, they could not think of making resistance.

[480] Vol. I. p. 347. Compare a minute discussion of this circumstance, p. 402.

Musical Instruments Among the Egyptians.

According to Exodus 15:20-21, after they had passed through the sea, Miriam, the
prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand, and all the women
followed after her with timbrels and dances, and Miriam answered them (Moses and
the children of Israel): “Sing to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously;
the horse and the rider hath he thrown into the sea.” Analogies for this scene,
in more than one respect, are found upon the Egyptian monuments. First, we find
upon them, as here, separate choirs of men and women. Champollion[481]
discovered in the grottoes of Beni Hassan, “a picture which represented a
concert of vocal and instrumental music; a singer is accompanied by a player
upon the harp, and assisted by two choirs, one of which is composed of men and
the other of women; the latter beat time with their hands.”

[481] S. 53. der Briefe.

Further; the timbrel or the tambourine was, according to the representations of
the monuments, commonly the instrument of the women, as the flute of the
men.[482] description and drawing of the tambourine is given by Wilkinson.[483]
We also find upon the Egyptian monuments, as here, the playing of the tambourine
even unaccompanied by other instruments, in connection with the dance and
singing. “Women,” says Wilkinson,[484]in describing a scene in Thebes, “beat the
tambourine and darabooka drum, without the addition of any other instrument,
dancing or singing to the sound.” Finally; the monuments and descriptions show,
that among the Egyptians generally, music had a decidedly religious
destination.[485] Moreover, the tambourine was used among them in sacred
music.[486] Religious dances were performed in Egypt in the worship of
Osiris.[487] [482] Wilk. Vol. II. p. 253, 314. Ros. II. 3. p. 37 seq. A [483]
Vol. II. p. 254.

[484] Vol. II. p. 240, where a representation of this scene is found.

[485] Rosellini, II. 3. p. 78.

[486] Wilkinson, II. p. 316.

[487] Ros. II. 3. p. 96.The players on the timbrels and cymbals always danced to
the sound of their own music, and these dances formed part of the ceremonials
used in religious worship, as well as in triumphal processions. Thus, David
exhorting to the worship of Jehovah, says, “Praise him with the timbrel and
dance.” (Psalms 150:4.) Though men did not often join in these religious dances,
boys were indulged in this pastime. It was probably because dancing in public
was regarded as unmanly, that David’s doing so exposed him to the contempt of
his wife; we are told, “David danced before the Lord with all his might; and
David was girded with a linen ephod. So David and all the house of Israel
brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet.
And as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal Saul’s daughter
looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord;
and she despised him in her heart.” (2 Samuel 6:14-16.) The Jews appear to have
brought this custom of religious dances from Egypt, for we find that dancing was
a part of the idolatrous worship offered to the golden calf. (Exodus 32:19.) But
festive dances were not confined to religions occasions; they were celebrated at
stated times by the villagers, especially at the season of the vintage, and it
was at such a time that the Benjamites seized the virgins of Shiloh. (Judges
21:21.) There were also dances and hymns to commemorate a victory, or to honour
a conqueror; for when David fled from Saul, and sought shelter among the
Philistines, “The servants of Achish said unto him, Is not this David the king
of the land? did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, Saul
hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands ?” (1 Samuel 21:11.)

We will here add those things which the examination of Egyptian antiquity
furnishes in explanation of the remaining passages of the Pentateuch, where
music is mentioned.

According to Numbers 10:2 seq., two silver trumpets, חֲצֽוֹצְרֹ֣תchatzotzeroth,
were ordered to be made for calling together the congregation, to give the
signal for breaking up the camp, for use in war, (see Numbers 31:6, where in the
war against Midian the trumpets are taken,) and for festal occasions. By the
blast of another kind of trumpets, called שׁוֹפַ֤רshophar, according to
Leviticus 25:8 seq., the year of jubilee was announced. From Joshua, Joshua 6:4,
where the same instrument is interchangeably called trumpet and horn, we see
that this last instrument had the form of a horn, and accordingly the
chatsotserah must be the straight trumpet.

Among the Egyptians, remarks Wilkinson,[488] trumpets were already in use in the
earliest times of the Pharaohs. The sculptures at Thebes show this. Trumpeters
are there often represented in the battle scenes, sometimes standing still and
summoning the troops to form, and at other times leading them to a rapid charge.
Rosellini says: “The Egyptians were acquainted with the real straight trumpet,
and made use of it for warlike purposes, as far as the monuments show, as the
Tyrrhenians make use of it only in war.” See the description of this trumpet in
Wilkinson,[489] who also remarks that it was especially used in war. The crooked
trumpet is not found on the Egyptian monuments, but Elistathius makes mention of
an instrument in the fashion of a crooked trumpet, whose invention he ascribes
to Osiris, and whose Egyptian name he gives, remarking that it was used for
assembling the people to sacrifice.[490] It is remarkable that, as among the
Egyptians, so also among the Israelites in the Mosaic times, only the straight
trumpet was in general use, and especially among both, this only was made use of
in war.”

[488] Vol. I. p. 297.

[489] II. 260, 262.

[490] Upon the Iliad,Σ. 219, pd. Lips. t. iv. p. 65:δευτέρα
ἡστρογγύλη(σάλπιγξ)παρʼΑἰγυπτίοις,ἥν Ὄσιρις
εὖρε;Καλουμένη,φασὶ,χνύη,χρῶνται δʼαὐτῆπρὸς θυσίαν καλοῦντες τοῦς
ὄχλους δἰαὐτῆς. In Genesis 4:2, Jubal is represented as the father of all
who play the lute and the pipe, accordingly the invention of these instruments
is referred to a primitive age. It serves indeed as a commendation of this
passage, that it represents music as beginning with its natural beginning, the
invention of stringed instruments.[491] But the great antiquity of stringed
instruments in general, and especially of those named, receives special
confirmation from the monuments. Among the Egyptians, we find even in the most
ancient times very curiously constructed stringed instruments, especially a
three stringed guitar, which implies a long succession of imperfect attempts.
Such instruments indeed are represented in the pyramids.[492] “The oldest
perhaps,” says the same author,[493] “found in the sculptures, are in a tomb
near the pyramids of Gizeh, between three and four thousand years old.”
According to Rosellini,[494] there is represented in the tomb of Imai, at Gizeh,
an eight stringed harp, which must belong to the times preceding the last
fifteen dynasties. In another very ancient tomb at Gizeh, there are represented
players on a similar harp. Indeed, upon the oldest monuments instruments are
found with the most diverse number of strings, and any advancement in the art of
constructing them cannot be traced.[495] [491] Burney in Wilk. II. p. 226.

[492] Wilk. II. p. 230.

[493] Wilk. p. 271.

[494] II. 3. p. 13.

[495] p. 12, 13.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: 14.     CHAPTER V: THE MATERIALS AND ARTS EMPLOYED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TABERNACLE AND PRIE...
========================================================================

Chapter V: The Materials and Arts Employed in the Construction of the Tabernacle
and Priests’ Garments.

Cultivation of the Arts Among the Egyptians and Israelites.

It has been adduced as an argument against the historical character of the
Pentateuch, that the construction of the tabernacle and the priest’s garments,
implies a cultivation of the arts and an abundance of costly materials, such as
we could not expect to find among the Israelites when they left Egypt. These
materials consisted not merely of gold, silver and brass, but also of costly
stuffs, furs and spices, things which a nomade people are not accustomed to
carry with them in their wanderings. It is accordingly argued that the whole
description of the tabernacle belongs not to history but to fiction.[496] The
assertion was made with so much confidence that it has by degrees become
established and traditional.

[496] See Vater, Abhand. S. 648, De Wette, Beitr. I. S. 259. II. S. 260. Von
Bohlen, S. CXII. The foundation for its confutation, we have indeed previously
laid,[497] by showing that the prevalent view concerning the condition of the
Israelites in Egypt, according to which they merely continued their nomade life,
is a false one, since they there availed themselves of the advantages of
Egyptian culture and civilization, and in some respects attained to considerable
prosperity. To complete the structure, there is now nothing further requisite,
than to show that the materials which were used in making the tabernacle and
priestly robes, were at that time already in use in Egypt, but most especially
that the arts and contrivances which come into consideration, were there already
in existence and known. For the material and intellectual resources of the
Egyptians we justly consider as common to the Israelites with them.

[497] Beiträge Th. 2. S. 430 ff. But to furnish this information is not our only
design in this chapter. We also aim at a more positive object beyond this. While
we show that the Israelitish arts are connected with the Egyptian by many
characteristic peculiarities, we prove that the situation of things is just such
as it must be, if we suppose that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, or at
least that it is historically accurate, while later fiction or fictitious
narrative could not have originated or sustained this Egyptian relationship.

We begin with a general declaration of one of the most distinguished
investigators of Egyptian antiquity. “It is a wonderful fact, that the first
information which we have with regard to the history and manners of the
Egyptians, shows us a nation which is far advanced in civilized life. The same
customs and inventions which prevailed in the Augustan era of this people, at
the commencement of the eighteenth dynasty, are also found even in the far
distant age of Osirtasen, the contemporary of Joseph.” The Art of Cutting and
Setting Precious Stones. The materials which were used in the construction of
the tabernacle and priest’s garments were a part of them hard, and a part soft.
Among the former, precious stones take the first place. Bezaleel, is spoken of
in Ex. 33:36, as distinguished among other things for his skill “in the
preparation of stones for setting.” Precious stones, on which the names of the
Israelites were engraven in the character engraven on the signet ring, were
placed, according to Exodus 28:9-11; Exodus 28:17, seq., in golden encasements
upon the ephod and breastplate of the high priest. The art of cutting precious
stones, generally very early discovered, was practised in Egypt even in very
ancient times.[498] “There are several necklaces of gold and cornelian in the
new gallery of Egyptian antiquities opened at the British Museum, whose
exquisite workmanship could scarcely be surpassed by modern artists, though as
we see from the engraving, the apparatus of the jeweller was as simple as could
well be imagined. This is still the case in Hindoostan, where the native
jeweller, travelling from house to house with his little furnace and blow pipe,
produces ornaments of considerable beauty.”[499] How very much genuine precious
stones were valued is indeed evident from the circumstance that imitations of
them were made in considerable numbers. The Theban artists were particularly
distinguished in this employment of counterfeiting. As, then we find it common
for the Egyptians to imitate the ornaments of the rich in cheaper materials for
the use of the lower classes, it is very evident that the spirit of luxury,
which belongs to an advanced state of civilization was already at an early
period widely diffused in Egypt.[500] That the art of the engraver was native to
Egypt, is manifest from the data which Wilkinson has furnished with regard to
the Egyptian signets. Of many of them he has also engravings.[501] There, for
example, is described the signet yet preserved, of one of the earliest of the
Pharaohs. Upon one side of the plate the name of the king is engraved; upon the
opposite, a lion with the motto: “The lord of strength,” which is applied to the
king; on one side is a scorpion, and on the opposite a crocodile.[502] Moreover,
various other inscriptions are found engraved on Egyptian rings.”[503] [498] See
quotations from Winkelmann, Müller and others in Bähr Symbol. Th. II. S. 103.

[499] Taylor, p. 88.

[500] Taylor, p. 88.

[501] Vol. III. p. 373-4.

[502] The assertion of Pliny, 33: 6: “Non signat Oriens aut Aegyptus etiam nunc,
literis contenta solis,” is by these discoveries shown to be false.

[503] Compare Wilk. III. p. 376. The Art of Purifying and Working Metals.

Among the hard materials, the metals hold the second place. Of Bezaleel it is
said in Exodus 35:32, he had power to devise curious works, to work in gold and
silver and brass.” With this compare what Rosellini[504] says: “From all such
articles, as they are represented in the Egyptian tombs, it is manifest, how
anciently the art of casting and working metals was practised in Egypt”—And:
“The greater part of Egyptian metallic articles are of bronze, not a few of
gold, a smaller number of silver, very few of lead and those made of iron are
seldom found.”[505] [504] II. 2. p. 297.

[505] Ros. II. 2. p. 208. The gold which was ordered to be used about the
sanctuary is commonly designated as pure gold.[506] A painting in the tomb at
Thebes which bears the date of Thothmes IV., appears to represent the fusion and
purifying of gold.[507] Many ornaments are found in the Egyptian collections
which are made of the purest gold. The monuments furnish clear evidence that
gold was purified, and thus of course distinguished from that which was
unwrought and not purified. Incorrectly, therefore have some, referring to some
one old ornament, made of impure gold, denied to the Egyptians the art of
preparing pure gold.[508] According to Exodus 25:11, the ark of testimony, and
according to 26:29, all the boards of the tabernacle were to be overlaid with
gold. “We find,” says Wilkinson,”[509] that in Egypt substances of various kinds
were overlaid with gold leaf, at the earliest periods of which the monuments
remain even in the time of the first Osirtasen.” Even the mummies were
gilded.[510] [506] SeeExodus 25:11;Exodus 25:17;Exodus 25:24;Exodus 25:29and
other passages.

[507] Rosellini II. 2. p. 278.

[508] Ibid. p. 280.

[509] Vol. III. 224.

[510] See Pettigrew, History of Egyptian Mummies, London, 1834, p.63.

According to Exodus 39:3, the high priest’s ephod was interwoven with threads of
gold. We find even gold wire attached to rings bearing the date of Osirtasen the
first; and silver wire existed in the days of the third Thothmes.[511] Some of
the colored Egyptian dresses represented in the paintings are probably woven
with gold threads.[512] [511] Wilk. III. p. 129.

[512] Wilk. III. p. 131. In the two upper golden rings of the breastplate,
wreathed golden chains were inserted, for fastening the breastplate to the
ephod.[513] Golden chains were very common among the Egyptians, and are often,
for example, represented as necklaces.[514] [513] Exodus 28:22seq. Bähr Symbol.
Vol. II. S. 105.

[514] Wilkinson, Vol. III. p. 376, with the engraving, 409, M. The golden
candlestick was ornamented with flowers of gold, Exodus 25:31 seq.
Representations of flowers were also probably made on the variegated cloths of
the tabernacle.[515] The Egyptians had an extraordinary love for flowers, both
natural and artificial. The Lotus and other favorite flowers are found
everywhere worn as ornaments. According to Pliny[516] they made artificial
flowers which received the name of “Ægyptiæ.”[517] [515] Bähr Th. I. S. 314.

[516] 21:2.

[517] Wilk. Vol. II. p. 183. In Exodus, Exodus 35:22, among the free will
offerings which both the men and women of Israel brought for the sanctuary,
“nose rings and ear rings, and signet rings and pendants,” all jewels of gold,
first mentioned. Astonishment at this abundance of ornaments is at an end, when
we read what Rosellini[518] upon this point: “Costly and elegant ornaments
abounded, in proportion as clothing in general was simple and scarce among the
Egyptians. Girdles, necklaces, armlets, rings, earrings and amulets of various
kinds suspended from the neck, are found represented in the paintings and in
fact, still exist on the mummies. Figures of noble youth, are found entirely
devoid of clothing, but richly ornamented with necklaces,” etc.[519] [518] Vol.
II. 2. p. 419-20. says

[519]Gilding was certainly understood by the Egyptians, for we find several
examples of it on the mummies and the mummy cases. In the new Egyptian gallery
just opened at the British Museum, there are masks on a mummy and a mummy case
exquisitely gilt and burnished, which are among the richest specimens of the
gilding art in any age. It would be too long a digression to examine whether the
“overlaying the boards of the tabernacle with gold,” (Exodus 36:34,) refers to
gilding ora covering of thin plates ; but, in support of the former view, we may
notice that the weight of the plates would have rendered the tabernacle very
difficult of transport, and a positive incumbrance to the Israelites in their
journeying through the desert; the amount of gold, too, collected by Moses,
would not have supplied sufficient material for plates, however thin, to cover
the entire edifice ; and, finally, the word hero rendered “overlaying” is the
same used to describe the decorating of the carved work in Solomon’s temple,
which must have been gilding, as plates, however thin, would have concealed the
tracery and foliage described to have been wrought with so much artistic skill.
The quantity of gold, indeed, which would have been required to cover all the
parts of the temple which Solomon is said to have “overlaid,” would be utterly
incredible if we supposed that he covered them with plates, however thin; this
is sufficiently clear from the description: “So Solomon overlaid the house
within with pure gold ; and he made a partition by the chains of gold before the
oracle; and he overlaid it with gold. And the whole house he overlaid with gold,
until he had finished all the house: also the whole altar that was by the oracle
he overlaid with gold. And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive
tree, each ten cubits high. And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and
five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one
wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits. And the other cherub
was ten cubits: both the cherubims were of one measure and one size. The height
of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub. And he set
the cherubims within the inner house; and they stretched forth the wings of the
cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the
other cherub touched the other wall: and their wings touched one another in the
midst of the house. And he overlaid the cheruhims with gold.” (1 Kings 6:21-28.)
Isaiah distinctly mentions that the goldsmith “spreadeth over” the molten image
with gold, (Isaiah 40:19.); and he also intimates that wood was also gilt over,
for he speaks of the “carpenter encouraging the goldsmith.” (Isaiah 41:7.) The
brazen laver according to Exodus 38:8, was made of the brazen mirrors which the
holy women offered.[520] “One of the principal objects of the toilet,” says
Wilkinson,[521] “was the mirror. It was of mixed metal, chiefly copper, most
carefully wrought and highly polished; and so admirably did the skill of the
Egyptians succeed in the composition of metals, that this substitute for our
modern looking- glass was susceptible of a lustre which has even been partially
revived at the present day, in some of those discovered at Thebes, though buried
in the earth for many centuries.” The mirror was nearly round, inserted into a
handle of wood, stone or metal of various forms.[522] See also the same
author[523]upon looking-glasses discovered at Thebes, and upon the whole
subject, Rosellini,[524] according to whom, the Egyptian name of mirror like the
Hebrew, signifies, the view of the face.

[520] Th. 3. der Beiträge, S. 133.

[521] Vol. III. p. 384.

[522] Engravings of them are found in Wilk. III. 385-6.

[523] Vol. III. p. 253.

[524] Vol. II. 2. 528 seq.

Skill in Carving Wood. The third hard material is wood. The circumstance that
the same kind of wood which was employed about the sanctuary, the acacia,
(tamarisk, sant,)[525] was also commonly used in Egypt is of but little
importance, since this is the only wood which the desert furnishes. The
Egyptians were greatly skilled in joiner and cabinet work.[526]Rosellini says,
on p. 38: according to the monuments, the saw was known and in use 2000 years
before our era.

[525]Compare Herod. B. 2. c. 122. Jablonsky, Vocc. Aeg. ap. Script. Vett., s. v.
Sant and Sittim, Rosellini, II. 2. S. 33. Wilk. Vol. III. p. 168.

[526]Compare Ros. II. 2. p. 32, and Taylor, p. 106 seq.

Use of Leather.

Leather holds the first place among the soft materials. The covering of the
tabernacle, which lay directly over that of goat’s hair, according to Exodus
26:14, was to consist of ram’s skins colored red. Above that, was a covering of
another kind of handsome leather, which cannot be accurately defined. The
preparation of leather, says Wilkinson,[527] was an important branch of Egyptian
industry. The fineness of the leather of the straps of a mummy discovered at
Thebes, and the beauty of the figures which are stamped upon it, show
conclusively the skill of the artist who prepared it. Some of these pieces of
leather bear the name of the kings of the oldest times. Rosellini[528] also
gives an account of the art of making leather. In the tombs at Thebes, a shop
filled with leather-workers is found represented. They made bottles, quivers and
pouches of different colors, and ornaments, shoes and sandals, shields, etc., of
leather. “The wood of the Egyptian harps was sometimes covered with colored
leather. In the museum of the Louvre, at Paris, an Egyptian harp is preserved,
whose wood is covered with a kind of green morocco, cut in the form of a lotus
blossom.”[529] [527] Vol. III. p. 155.

[528] Ros. II. 2. p. 355.

[529] Ros. II. 3. p. 16.

Spinning, Weaving and Embroidery.

We now turn our attention to their cloths of the tabernacle and priests’
garments. Many passages mention the twisted byssus.[530] In the tombs of Beni
Hassan, the process of preparing the thread and twining it, in preparation for
weaving, is exhibited.[531] They were accustomed to beat the yarn with clubs so
as to make it softer and more suitable for twining; they also boiled the thread
in water to increase its softness, and at the same time give it greater
consistence, and thus make it better for twisting and weaving. The byssus in
particular was treated in this way. The inscription on a part of an Egyptian
wall-picture is interpreted by Rosellini:[532] The preparation of the yarn of
byssus. Then follows the representation of the twisting itself, which is
performed, partly by men and partly by women, and indeed in different ways,
which Rosellini describes.[533] [530]Exodus 26:1;Exodus 26:31, and other
passages.

[531] Ros. II. 2. p. 13, 14.

[532] p. 16.

[533] p. 16 and 17. The skill of the Egyptians in weaving, and the great renown
of their cloths in all antiquity, is recognized and confirmed by the fact, that
the ancient writers attribute to the Egyptians the invention of this art.[534]

[534] Aegyptii textilia (invenerunt). Plin. B. 7. c. 56.Moses is the first who
mentions the preparation of gold in threads to be interwoven with the more
precious cloths. “And they did beat the gold into thin plates and cut it into
wires, to work it in the blue, and in the purple, and in the scarlet, and in the
fine linen with cunning work.” (Exodus 39:3.) Cloth of golden tissue is not
uncommon on the monuments, and specimens of it have been found rolled about the
mummies, but it is not easy to determine whether the gold thread was originally
interwoven or subsequently inserted by the embroiderer.

Herodotus[535] mentions as one of the points in which the Egyptians differ from
other nations, that among them the women perform the out-of-door’s work, and the
men weave.[536] Other ancient writers bear testimony to the same thing. “In
ancient times the weavers of Panopolis, in Upper Egypt, were especially
distinguished, in later times, those in Arsinoe, Pelusium and Alexandria.”[537]
Also very many men are seen on the monuments employed in weaving,[538] and when
we not unfrequently also see women weaving,[539] this can, in view of the
testimony of ancient writers, yet be considered only as the exception which
destroys not the rule.—Now, in most perfect agreement with these notices of
ancient writers, the preparation of the cloth for the sanctuary and the
sacerdotal robes is represented throughout as under the care of men.[540]

[535] Chap. 2. 35 Compare c. 105:Οἱδὲἄνδρες κατʼοἰκους ἐόντες
ὑφαίνουσι.

[536] Heeren, S. 388.

[537] Strabo, 17, 813. Drumann Inschrift von Rosette, S. 170.

[538] See, e.g. Minutoli, t. 25.

[539] Ros. II. 2. p. 30, and Wilk. Vol. III. p. 134, and the engravings, Vol.
II. p. 60.

[540] See the phrase, “work of the weaver,” inExodus 28:32;Exodus 39:22;Exodus
39:27; “work of the artificer,” in 28:6, 15, 26:31, but especially ch. 35:36.
The women, on the contrary, performed the spinning,[541] and this work generally
belonged to them in Egypt.[542] Wilkinson gives engravings of women who are
employed with the spindle. Yet this was not exclusively their work.[543]
[541]Exodus 35:25.

[542]Herod. 2. 35, and Wilk. 2.60.

[543]Wilk. Vol. III. p. 133. The same author also gives an engraving of Egyptian
spindles, p. 136.

It is evident from Exodus 35:25, according to which the Israelitish women
brought of the purple which they had spun, that the colored fabrics which were
employed about the tabernacle, were dyed before weaving. The same thing was also
done among the Egyptians. In Minutoli[544] it is said: “From many experiments
upon the ancient Egyptian cloth it appears that the byssus was colored in the
wool before weaving, which also is shown by Exodus 25:4; Exodus 26:1. The
process which Pliny[545] describes for impressing different colors all at once
upon the web after it is finished by the use of various preparations, appears
therefore to be a later advancement in Egyptian art.” Wilkinson[546] also shows
that cloth was colored in the thread among the ancient Egyptians.

[544] S. 402.

[545] Hist. nat. p. 35, 42.

[546] Vol. III. p. 125. The colored figures in the cloth of the Israelites were
partly the product of the weaver in colors, ה‍‍שֵׁב, whose art appears the
superior, and partly that of the embroiderer in colors, רֹקַם.[547] Both methods
are reproduced on the monuments, so that the objection which has been brought
forward against rendering the word rokem by embroiderers, that the art of
embroidering was generally unknown in earlier ages, and particularly among the
Hebrews, is to be regarded as entirely groundless. “Many of the Egyptian
stuffs,” says Wilkinson,[548] “presented various patterns worked in colors by
the loom, independent of those produced by the dyeing or printing process, and
so richly composed, that they vied with cloths embroidered with the needle.” The
Egyptian sails, says the same author,[549] were some of them embroidered with
fanciful devices, representing the phoenix, flowers and other emblems. This,
however, was confined to the pleasure boats of the nobles and king. That this
was done even in the early ages, is evident from the paintings at Thebes, which
show sails ornamented with various colors of the time of Remeses III. The
devices are various, the most common one is the phoenix.[550]

[547] Compare the passage in the LXX, and the proof thatרֹקַםsignifies
embroiderers, in opposition to Hartmann, Gesen. and others, in Bähr Symb. I. S.
267.

[548] Vol. III. p. 128.

[549] Ibid, 210.

[550] See engravings in Wilk. III. 210. In Exodus 28:32, it is said of the outer
garment of the high priest: “And its opening for the head shall be in the middle
of it, a border shall there be to the opening round about, of woven work, like
the opening of a habergeon shall it be, so that it be not rent.” No other than a
linen harbergeon can be meant; for no other would need a binding. The linen
armor of the Egyptians was renowned in all antiquity. Herodotus[551] mentions a
linen habergeon (or corselet), ornamented with many animals, and worked with
cotton thread and with gold, which Amasis sent to the Lacedemonians as a
present, and also another which the same king dedicated to Minerva at Lindus. He
designates this last as a “linen corselet worthy of admiration.”[552] It is
acknowledged, that the linen corselet was not peculiar to Egypt alone.[553] But
yet an importance such as is here implied, the linen corselet had nowhere except
in Egypt.

[551]3. 47.]] [552]2. 182. See also Wilk. III. 127 seq.

[553] Ajax is designated in theIliad, 2. 529, as,λινοθώρηξ. Compare the
passages collected and referred to in Perizonius upon Sueton. Galba, c. 19.

Preparation and Use of Unguents.

We also remark, that what is said in Exodus 30:22 seq., concerning the holy
ointment and its preparation, has received abundant explanation and confirmation
from investigations in Egypt. Unguents were very much used among the Egyptians.
This is evident in part from representations in the paintings, and in part from
the vases for containing them which yet exist. Some of them still retain their
odor. As far as can be determined from these last, unguents appear sometimes to
have been made of nut oil, but it is probable, that animal as well as vegetable
oil was used for this purpose, while the other ingredients depended on the taste
of the maker or purchaser.[554] [554] Wilk. II. p. 214, and III. 378.

It is worthy of notice, that in the description of the holy ointment, the hin is
first used as a measure, which afterwards often appears in the Pentateuch. It
has no discoverable Hebrew etymology, and furthermore it appears probable that
the name is not of Hebrew origin, since it is found, out of the Pentateuch, only
in Ezekiel, in the description of the temple, where, like so many other words,
it is not taken from the current language of the day, but from the Pentateuch.
According to Leeman,[555] the word is borrowed from the Egyptian language. The
hin, he asserts, was originally the general name for a vessel which then was
transferred by the Hebrews and Egyptians to a certain measure of variable
compass.

[555] Lettre a M. Salvolini sur les Monumens Égyptians, Leyden 1838.

Hitherto we have occupied ourselves only with the materials of the tabernacle
and priest’s garments, and the arts which are known to have been employed upon
them. Now, we will also show, that even in the religious institutions of the
Books of Moses, Egyptian references cannot be denied, notwithstanding the
opposition of those who in modern times, combating the practice so hostile to
sound criticism, of finding such references wherever there is the least
semblance of a reason for it, have wholly denied their existence.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: 15.     CHAPTER VI: EGYPTIAN REFERENCES IN THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF THE BOOKS OF MOSES.
========================================================================

Chapter VI: Egyptian References in the Religious Institutions of the Books of
Moses.

Law Among the Egyptians and Israelites. The complicated character of the
legislation of the Pentateuch directs us, in a general way, to Egypt.[556] So
complex a code of laws could not have been given to a people who had not indeed
from former circumstances been accustomed to a law regulating the whole life. If
we fancy the Israelites as still occupying the position of the patriarchs, they
are a complete enigma to us. Egypt was preeminently a land of law, and
especially of written law. “There can be no doubt,” says Heeren,[557] “after all
that we know of Egyptian antiquity, that legislation in its main branches was
there carried, as far at least as in any other land of the East.”[558] But
especially was the religious polity of the Egyptians carried out into the most
minute details. Herodotus[559] says of the Egyptian priests: “The priests shave
the whole body every third day—; the priests also wear a linen garment and shoes
of papyrus, and they are not permitted to put on any other clothing, and no
other shoes. They bathe themselves in cold water twice a day, and twice every
night. And yet many thousand other usages, I might say, they must observe.”[560]
[556]In den Beitragen, Th. 3. S. 623-4.

[557]S. 167.

[558] Concerning the Books of Legislation among the Egyptians, see Diod. I. 94,
and Zoega, De Obeliscis, p. 520.

[559] B. 2. c. 37.

[560]Ἄλλας τε θρησκίας ἐπιτελέουσι μυρίας εἰπεῖν λόγῳ.

If we take into view the people from among whom the Israelites were removed, the
complicated character of the Mosaic polity, very far from being an argument
against its genuineness, must rather appear to us a necessary condition of it.
For a people which had been in such a school, a simple polity was by no means
suitable. In the following institutions of the Books of Moses, special Egyptian
references can be shown, or at least made probable.[561]

[561] We satisfy ourselves with the statement of the really tenable Egyptian
references, for those which have been claimed as untenable by those who have
preceded us, we refer to the “Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus,” by Bähr, where
their inadmissibility has been shown oftentimes in a striking manner.

We begin with those things which are closely connected with the preceding
chapter, without properly belonging to it. The Stuff and Color of the Priests’
Garments. The similarity which is found to exist between the Israelitish and
Egyptian priests’ garments in respect to color and material, is of no small
importance. It is clear from many passages, that the Israelitish priests were
clothed in white linen and byssus;[562] and that the Egyptians were also so
clothed, is evident from Herodotus:[563] “But the priests wear merely linen
clothing, and are not allowed to put on any other.” In this passage linen
includes also byssus.[564]

[562] AsExodus 28:39-42;Exodus 39:27-28,Leviticus 6:10. Compare Braun de Vestitu
Sacerdotis magni, I. p. 93: Vestes totius coetus lineae erant praeter balteum,
qui ex lana et lino mixtus.

[563] 2. 37.

[564] Compare Heeren Ideen, 1. 1. S. 107. II. 2. S. 133. Drumann, Ueber die
Inschrift von Rosette, S. 169. Pliny, Hist. nat. 19. 1, vestis ex gossypie
sacerdotibus Aeg. gratissimae.

Two arguments have been made use of to show that this agreement between Egyptian
and Israelitish antiquity is merely accidental. First, it is asserted, that
these priests’ garments did not probably belong to the Israelites and Egyptians
alone, but they are rather the same which were diffused throughout the old
world; a sure proof, that one people cannot be supposed to have adopted them
from another, that they were rather, from the nature of the case, everywhere
used. Bähr[565] says: “Everywhere from India to Gaul, the priests’ wear garments
of vegetable material, consequently, of linen or cotton, and of white, if
possible, of brilliant white color. It is the less necessary to refer to
individual documents concerning these well known facts, as they have been
already collected by several authors.”

[565] In der Symbolik, Th. II. p. 87. But among those quoted, Spencer and Braun,
in the passage cited,[566] speak only of the white color. The former directly
shows that linen clothing is, with the exception of the Israelites, peculiar
only to the Egyptian priests. Saubert,[567] only undertakes to prove that the
priests everywhere have been accustomed to clothe themselves with white linen
garments. But the passages which the inaccurate collector quotes, all have
reference either to Egyptian or Israelitish antiquity.

[566] 1. 179.

[567] De Sacrificiis, I. e. 9. p. 188. The color taken by itself, is indeed not
without some importance. It is allowed that white priestly apparel is common
among other nations of antiquity. But in this exclusiveness it is peculiar only
to the Egyptians and Israelites. Rosenmueller[568] remarks: “Among the Greeks
and Romans the color of the pontifical robes was different according to the
different gods to whom they sacrificed, and white garments were put on only when
they offered to Ceres.”[569](?) [568] In dem. A. & N. Morgenl. Th. 2. S. 190.

[569] Ovid’s Festb. 6. 619. But if we look at the material of the priests’ robes
in connexion with the color, an accidental agreement of Israelitish with
Egyptian antiquity, can no longer be thought of. That their priests were clothed
in linen, was considered in all antiquity as a remarkable and exclusive
peculiarity of the Egyptians. The documents have already been so fully quoted by
Spencer,[570] that we only need to refer to him. A priesthood clothed only in
linen, cannot be shown to have existed elsewhere in all heathen antiquity; and
if the new Pythagoreans, appealing to the alleged example of Pythagoras himself,
gave the preference to linen clothing, instead of woolen,[571] this can
certainly be accounted for only by supposing an imitation of Egyptian customs.

[570] p. 683 seq. He says: Addere liceat auctores illos antiquos, qui de veste
linea sic loqui solent, quasi sacrificulis Aegypti propria esset et peculiaris.
Namlinigeritanquam proprius et peculiaris character sacerdotum Aegyptiacorum
apud antiques, poetas inpiimis, frequenter usurpatur. Ideo enim
Juvenaligrexliniger, Ovidio linigera turba, Martialilinigericalvi, qui et
Senecae linteati senes appellantur. Herodotus aliique sacrum lineae vestis usum
inter nativos et antiquos Aegypti mores referunt. Compare the copious
collections upon linen as the peculiar dress of the Egyptian priests, in
Perizonius upon Suetonius, Otho, c. 12.

[571] According to Philistratus, p. 1. ed. Olearii, Pythagorus would wear no
clothing which was prepared from animal stuffs. Sic infra, remarks Olearius upon
this passage, Pythagoricae disciplinae initiatus Apolloniusλίνον ἐσθῆτα
ἀμπίσχεται,παραιτησάμενος τὴν ἀπὸζώων. Et l. l. 32, a Pythagora se habere
aitγηίνῳἐρίῳτούτῳἐστάλθαι, quod lana ex terra nata vestiatur. In B. 6.
c. 11 of the Pythagorean philosophy, Apollonius says: Sectatorem suam nee laena
esse fovendum, nec lana quae animatis depecti solet. Olearius refers also to
other passages. The passages which Braun refers to in one of various places
before cited (I. p. 103,) in proof of the incorrect position: “Ejusdem quoque
materiae plerumque fuerunt ethnicorum vestimenta sacra,” can relate only to the
Pythagoreans.

Bähr[572] adduces a second argument against the dependence of the priestly robes
of the Israelites upon those of the Egyptian. “In Egypt,” he says, “the byssus
was chosen in preference, and mainly on account of its origin, ‘out of the
indestructible earth,’ while they despised animal clothing, since it is obtained
from a creature subject to death, or since it implies the death of the animals
which the; suppose unallowed. The byssus garments of the Egyptian priests are
therefore most intimately connected with the fundamental principles of the
Egyptian natural religion, of which there is not the least trace to be found in
the Mosaic law. Supposing therefore that the Egyptian priests only, besides
those instituted by Moses, had worn the byssus garment, in consequence of the
entirely different significance it had among them, it could yet furnish no proof
of a borrowing or copying.”

[572]Symbol. 2. S. 90, 91. But allow that it is shown that the import of the
garment of byssus was entirely different among the Egyptians and the Israelites,
yet the latter might very properly have borrowed the custom. What good objection
is there to the supposition that they applied to a form borrowed from the
Egyptians a new significance? But the assertion that the reasons for the
preference of this kind of garment both among the Israelites and Egyptians are
entirely different, is in the highest degree uncertain. That among the
Israelites cleanliness is the ground of the use of garments of linen only, and
the prohibition of woolen is evident, from Ex. 44:17, 18. The same thing is
shown by Bähr himself. To the same cause Herodotus, the oldest witness, traces
back the use of linen garments among the Egyptian priests. Both that which goes
before the clause already quoted: “The priests wear only linen garments.” and
also that which follows, has reference to the cleanliness, which in the
estimation of the Egyptian priests was a matter of so much importance. It is
said before: The Egyptians are excessively religious above all other people, and
consequently practise the following usages: They drink from brazen cups which
they wash out thoroughly every day. They wear linen garments always newly
washed, with regard to which they take peculiar care. They also practise
circumcision for the sake of cleanliness, and prefer neatness to decorum.
Moreover, the priests shave the whole body each third day, lest either a louse
or any other vermin, may be found on them, while they are engaged in the service
of the gods.” After follows: “They bathe twice a day in cold water and twice
every night.”

Plutarch[573] who lived so much later, upon whom Bähr relies for support in his
claim for the most intimate connexion of the linen garments of the Egyptian
priests with their peculiar theology, reasons evidently on his own way, without
reference to the priests, and as the comparison with Philostratus shows, more in
the sense of the new Pythagoreans, than of the Egyptian priests. Besides, he
also represents the linen as a pure garment which least of all generates
vermin.[574] [573] De Isideet Osir. p. 352.

[574]Καθαρὰν ἐσθῆτα ἥκιστα φθωιροποιόν. But the reason assigned by Bähr is
not even reconcilable with the Egyptian law. The contempt for animal material in
itself, accords not with the divine honor which in Egypt was shown to animals.
That the killing of animals in general in Egypt was considered as unallowed, is
entirely incorrect. Animals were sacrificed and eaten in Egypt without scruple.

How one can suppose in his zeal for the vindication of the Bible, that it is
necessary to contend against the dependence of the Israelitish upon the Egyptian
priests’ garments, can scarcely be conceived. The more original, independent and
peculiar the Israelitish religion was in spirit, the less necessity had it to
avoid with timid care, every external contact with the religions of other
nations, the more freely could it appropriate to itself the suitable existing
forms, and the more untrammelled might it avail itself of the advantages which
familiarity with the religion of Egypt offered. But we consider it certain that
the Israelitish priests’ garments in respect to material and color, were made in
imitation of those of the Egyptian priests. Their independence of each other is
excluded, since in reference to these particular circumstances, these two
nations stand alone in all antiquity. The thought of an inverted order of things
is, in addition to the general reasons already given, impossible, since the
priesthood in Egypt, according to expressions in the Pentateuch itself, had
already long existed when that of the Israelites was instituted, the material of
the clothing is peculiarly Egyptian, and the garment of byssus even in the time
of Joseph, appears as the most common Egyptian clothing.[575] Thus, we have an
important result in favor of the Pentateuch. Such a reference to Egyptian
customs can only be supposed, if the priesthood was instituted in the
circumstances given in the Pentateuch; and modern views of the origin of the
Israelitish priesthood must appear as entirely untenable, since in the time to
which this is referred, so close a connexion did not exist between the
Israelites and Egyptians as to render it possible for the former to borrow from
the latter.

[575]Genesis 41:42.

Urim and Thummin. The Egyptian reference in the Urim and Thummim, is especially
distinct and incontrovertible. Of them it is said: “And you shall put in the
breast-plate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim (the light and the truth); and
they shall be on Aaron’s heart when he goeth in before the Lord; and Aaron shall
bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord
continually,” Exodus 28:30. According to Aelian,[576] he high priest among the
Egyptians, as superior judge, wore around his neck an image of Sapphire, which
was called truth. Diodorus[577] also confirms this fact. According to him the
chief judge (also according to Diodorus the office of judge belonged to the
priests,[578]) wore around his neck an image of costly stones, suspended upon a
gold chain which was named truth. After both of two contending parties have laid
open their case the high priest must touch one of them with the image of truth.
The same author[579] in describing an Egyptian wall-picture shows us in the
midst of the judges, the chief judge, “who wears suspended from his neck the
truth with closed eyes.” By this it is shown that the chief judge must see only
the truth. These declarations of the ancients have received confirmation from
the new discoveries in Egypt. In proof of the statement of Diodorus,
Rosellini[580] says: “Among the monuments of the tombs, representations of
persons are found who filled the office of chief judge, and who wore the common
little image of the goddess Thmei suspended from the neck. Wilkinson[581] gives
from the Theban monuments an engraving of the goddess who was honored under the
double character of truth and justice, and was represented with closed eyes.

[576] Var. Hist. L. 14.c. 34:Αἰγυπτιοίφασι παρʼἙρμοῦτὰνόμιμα
ἐκμουσωθῆναν δικασταὶδὲτὸἀρχαῖον παρʼΑἰγυπρίοις οἱἱερεῖς ἦσαν·ἦν
δὲτούτων ἄρχων ὁπρεσβύτατος καὶἐδίκαζεν ἅπαντας.Ἔδει δὲαὐτὸν
εἶναι δικαιότατον ἀνθρώπων καὶἀφειδέστατον·εἶχε δὲκαὶἄγαλμα
περὶτὸν αὐχένα ἐκ σαπφείρου λίθου καὶἰκαλεῖτο τὸἄγαλμα ἀλήθεια.

[577] B. 31. c. 75.

[578] See Wesseling on this passage.

[579] B. 1. c. 48.

[580] 11. 3. p. 500.

[581] II. p. 27. That a connection here exists between Egyptian and Israelitish
antiquity,[582] even the Seventy probably perceived, since in Exodus 28:30, they
translated Urim and Thummim, by revelation and truth, δήλωσιςἀλήθεια. This
relation also forced itself even upon the ancient theologians. Braun,[583] for
example, supposes that the Egyptians probably borrowed this symbol from the
Israelites.

[582]The general similarity of the sacerdotal institutions among the ancient
Egyptians and the Israelites, is very noticeable. The ceremony of investiture to
office of the priests, among the Israelites, is described inExodus 27:5-7, “Thou
shalt take the garments, and put upon Aaron the coat, and the robe of the ephod,
and the ephod, and the breast-plate, and gird him with the curious girdle of the
ephod: and thou shalt put the mitre upon his head and put the holy crown upon
the mitre.Thenshalt thou take the anointing oil and pour it upon his head.” The
priest is anointed with oil after he has put on his entire dress. “The
Egyptians” also, “represent the anointing of their priests and kingsafterthey
were attired in their full robes, with the cap and crown upon their head. Some
of the sculptures introduce a priest pouring oil over the monarch, in the
presence of Thoth, Hor-Hat, Ombte, or Nilus; which may be considered a
representation of the ceremony, before the statues of those gods. The
functionary who officiated was the high-priest of the king. He was clad in a
leopard-skin, and was the same who attended on all occasions which required him
to assist, or assume the duties of the monarch in the temple. This leopard-skin
dress was worn by the high-priests on all the most important solemnities, and
the king himself adopted it when engaged in the same duties.”—Wilkinson, Man.
and Cus.,2d Ser., Vol. II. p. 280. Both the Egyptians and Israelites were
purified with water before they assumed the sacerdotal robes. (Exodus 40:12-15.)
They were divided into different orders, among both nations, and the offering of
incense was limited to priests of the highest rank. Priests were the judges,
also, among the Israelites and Egyptians.Wilkinsonsays,Vol. I. p. 282:“Besides
their religious duties, the priests fulfilled the important offices of judges
and legislators, as well as councillors of the monarch ; and the laws, as among
many other nations of the East, forming part of the sacred books, could only be
administered by them.” So inDeuteronomy 17:8,—”If there arise a matter too hard
for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and
between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates ; then
shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall
choose ; and thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge
that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence
of judgment.”—Of the similarity of Urim and Thummim to the Egyptian
symbol,Wilkinson,(Vol. II. 2d Ser. p. 28,) after speaking of the badge of the
judge among the Egyptians, says: “A similar emblem was used by the high-priests
of the Jews; and it is a remarkable fact, that the word Thummim is not only
translated ‘truth,’ but, being a plural or dual word, corresponds to the
Egyptian notion of the ‘two Truths,’ or the double capacity of this goddess.
According to some, the Urim and Thummim signify, ‘lights and perfections,’ or
‘light and truth,’—which last present a striking analogy to the two figures of
Re and Thmei, in the breast-plate worn by the Egyptians. And though the
resemblance of the Urim and the Uræus (or basilisk,) the symbol of majesty,
suggested by Lord Prudhoe, is very remarkable, I am disposed to think the
‘lights,’ Aorim or Urim, more nearly related to the sun, which is seated in the
breast-plate with the figure of Truth.”

[583]De Vestitu, p. 598. But recently Bähr[584] has denied that there is any
connection between the two. The agreement, he asserts, depends on no other
ground than the acknowledged false translation of Thummim by the Seventy, as
meaning truth. But this “acknowledged false translation” since the word means
perfectness or blamelessness in the moral sense, is proved on closer examination
to be as completely correct, as the explanation given by Bähr is on the other
hand false.[585] [584] Symb. II. S. 164.

[585] According to him, (See S. 165,) the wordתֹּם,Thom, must mean completeness,
andתֻּמִּים,Thummim, in connection withאוּרִים,Urim, is a subordinate, accessory
idea, both together meaning perfect illumination. The supposition of such a
hendyadis, besides that it is in itself very harsh, and confirmed by no entirely
analogous example, is excluded byDeuteronomy 33:8, whereתֻּמִּים,Thummim, stands
first: “Thy Thummim and thy Urim belong to thy holy one.” The Urim (the plur. is
the plur. majest., compare Beiträge Th. 2. S. 258,) therefore, refers to divine
illumination, the Thummim to the perfect rectitude of the decision given by him,
and integrity and truth are the designations of the same thing considered from a
different point of view. The circumstance thatאוּרִיםis used unaccompanied by
Thummim is very easily explained also by the moral element comprehended in the
latter. Light has right and truth as its necessary concomitants, so that the
Urim comprehends the Thummim in itself.

Besides, remarks Bähr, there is nothing more incongruous than the significance
of the Urim and Thummim when compared with that badge of the judge, which
evidently points to impartiality as his first duty. But the moral significance
which later Greek writers, according to their custom, give the symbol is not
certainly the first and most important one. That symbol has first and
principally a promissory significance. It refers to the special aid of the
goddess of truth and justice, which the high-priest and chief judge enjoyed. On
the other hand the promissory significance does not exclude the moral one in the
Israelitish symbol. Upon the promise follows of itself rather the admonition.
How intimately both are connected is shown by Deuteronomy 33:8-9, in which the
Urim and Thummim given to the tribe of Levi is considered as a pledge that God
will guide him in the decisions given in his name, and then it is said: “who
says unto his father and to his mother, I saw thee not, and his brother he
recognizes not, and his children he does not know,” words which in a striking
manner, remind one of the Egyptian image of the goddess of justice with closed
eyes, and of the statues of the judges at Thebes mentioned in Plutarch[586]
without hands with their president at their head, having his eyes directed to
the ground.

[586] De Isid. et Os. See Wilk. II: 28.

How any one could ever suppose that a denial of the affinity of these Egyptian
and Israelitish symbols is of any importance in the vindication of the truth,
can hardly be conceived. Through the outward similarity the internal difference
is more clearly exhibited. As among the Egyptians the author of truth appears to
be a mere personified abstraction, an image of their own fancy which can never
have a true and perfect power over its own producer, on the contrary, among the
Israelites he is the only, the living, the one God manifest among his own
people.

It is an important difference, that among the Egyptians the symbol appears to
have referred merely to judging in its narrower sense, while the Urim and
Thummim was a symbol of the judicial office in a broader sense, promising
generally to the high-priest divine assistance in difficult and important
decisions, especially such as have reference to the weal and woe of the whole
people.[587]

[587] Dr Hengstenberg assumes through this discussion, that the wearing of the
Urim and Thummim was little more than symbolical; but most English commentators
believe that they afforded some miraculous aid in coming to a right decision.
The Cherubim and the Sphinexs. The affinity of the cherubim with the Egyptian
Sphinxes is more doubtful, yet it is so only just so long as we consider the
thing merely by itself, and leave out of the account the numerous other points
of contact between the Pentateuch and Egypt. If these are taken into view, the
similarity is sufficient to warrant here also such an alliance. The Figure and
Significance of the Sphinxes.

We begin with some remarks upon the figure and significance of the Egyptian
sphinxes. As respects the figure, it was the current belief, in all antiquity,
that the sphinx was composed of the lion and a young female, and recently,
Bähr[588] has argued, on this supposition, against the affinity of the cherub
with the sphinxes. This opinion has also been yet more confirmed by the scholars
of the French expedition, who, while indeed Herodotus[589] speaks of the
man-sphinx, assert[590] that all the sphinxes with human heads which they saw,
except one near the pyramids, had the head of a female. This is also in
accordance with Aelian. On the contrary, the latest investigations of Egyptian
antiquity have come to the result, that the Egyptian sphinxes are never female,
like those of the Greeks, but always have the head of a man and the body of a
lion. Wilkinson[591] asserts this very confidently; as also Rosellini,[592] who
remarks: with the exception of a very few cases the sphinxes have a beard. It is
consequently not true, as some affirm, led into error by the Greek and Roman
sphinxes copied from those in Egypt, that these symbolic animals have the face
of a female. They are rather of male sex, which accords with their symbolic
import. The few exceptions are accounted for by supposing, that they symbolize a
queen who reigned at the time. Each of these symbolic figures bears on the
breast or some other part of the body, the name and title of the king whom they
designate, and whose features the human head exhibits. The sphinxes without
inscriptions are the work of Grecian or Roman artists. Even before both these
authors, Minutoli[593] had remarked: “The sphinxes have either bodies of lions
with human faces, without however a trace of the female figure, or the heads of
rams.”

[588] Th. 1. S. 358.

[589] B. 2. c. 175.

[590] See Descr. t. 2. p. 575.

[591] Vol. III. p. 23.

[592] II. 2. p. 177-8.

[593] S. 257.

We will now speak of the import of the sphinxes. It is acknowledged that the
Egyptian animal combinations, in general depending upon a symbolic significance,
designate the union of different characteristic properties which, by each part,
the animal made up will represent. So says Jomard:[594] “They have excelled not
less in the combination of different figures of animals, in order to compose
chimerical beings, expressing without doubt the reunion of the properties
attributed to each of these figures.” Creuzer[595] also remarks: “Upon this
Egyptian coin of the time of the emperor Adrian, we see the beardless sphinx
with the lotus on its head. The front part of its body is covered with a veil
down to the feet. Out of its breast there is leaping forth the inverted head of
a crocodile, under its feet crawls a serpent, and upon its back a griffon
appears with the wheel! There are, therefore, here the different attributes of
the godhead; that of strength and wisdom, that of secret control, the idea of
eternity and of a beneficent guardian angel, etc., united in this remarkable
way; and this representation may be designated by the technical term Pantheum.”

[594]In the Descr. t. 1. p. 311.

[595] Vol. I. p. 499.

Now, therefore, the sphinx can designate nothing else than the union of strength
and wisdom, and this import has also been attributed to it from ancient times
until the present, with no inconsiderable agreement.[596]

[596] Thus Clemens, Alex. Strom. L. 5. c. 8. p. 671, says:“ἀλκῆς καὶῥώμης
σύμβολον αὐτοῖς ὁλέγων.—Ἀλκῆς τε ἆν μετὰσυνέσεως ἡσφίγξ,τὸμὲν
σῶμα πᾶν λέοντος,τὸπρόσσπον δὲἀνθρώπου ἔχουσα. It is however granted,
that it has not always this significance; on the contrary, in c. 5. of the same
Vol. p. 664, its import is different. Synesius, De Regno, p. 7, designates the
sphinx as the sacred symbol of the union of the virtues, the strength of the
animal and the insight of man. Zoega, De Obeliscis, p. 598, says: Mens cum
robore conjuncta primus et obvius Aeg. sphingis significatus. Champollion,
Briefe, S. 229, gives a similar explanation: The monarch (Remeses Meiamun),
adorned with all the insignia of royalty, sits upon a beautiful throne, which
the golden images of justice and truth cover with their outstretched wings: the
sphinx, a symbol both of wisdom and strength, and the lion, the emblem of
courage, stand near the throne, and seem to be its guardians.

According to this whole view then, the sphinx symbolizes merely the union of the
two designated qualities;[597] whilst the possessor of these is not indicated by
the symbol itself, but can be known only by the position in which the sphinx is
found. If they are found, as they commonly are, at the entrance of a temple,
where they form entire rows[598] on each side, they designate the union of these
properties in the deity to whom the temple is dedicated. If they are found
around the throne of the king, then the king is the possessor of these
attributes.

[597]Mr Wilkinson,in his last work, confirms the opinion expressed in the former
one, with regard to the sphinx, and in effect, if his positions are correct,
answers the objections ofHengstenbergto the view that the sphinx designates not
qualities alone, but the king as the possessor of these qualities. I give a
rather long extract, but trust it will not, from its bearing on the whole
section, be deemed out of place. It will be recollected that the author of this
volume had not seen this last series ofMr Wilkinson:“The most distinguished post
among fabulous animals must be conceded to the sphinx. It was of three
kinds,—theAndro-sphinx,with the head of a man, and the body of a lion, denoting
the union of intellectual and physical power; theCrio-sphinx,with the head of a
ram and the body of a lion; and theHieraco-sphinx,with the same body and the
head of a hawk. They were all types or representatives of the king. The two last
were probably so figured in token of respect to the two deities whose heads they
bore, Neph and Re; the other great deities, Amun, Kheni, Pthah and Osiris,
having human heads, and therefore all connected with the form of the
Andro-sphinx. The king was not only represented under the mysterious figure of a
sphinx, but also of a ram, and of a hawk; and this last had, moreover, the
peculiar signification of ‘Phrah,’or Pharaoh, ‘the Sun,’personified by the
monarch. The inconsistency, therefore, of making the sphinx female, is
sufficiently obvious.—When represented in the sculptures a deity is often seen
presenting the sphinx with the sign of life, or other divine gifts usually
vouchsafed by the gods to a king; as well as to the ram or hawk, when in the
same capacity, as an emblem of a Pharaoh.”— Vol. II. p. 200.

[598]See Descr. t. 2. p. 505 seq. Creuzer, I. S. 498. On the contrary, Rosellini
and Wilkinson assert, that the sphinx designates not merely qualities, but also
the king as the possessor of them. But the defenders of this modern view have
not attempted to substantiate its claims in opposition to the old theory, and we
do not see how they can succeed in controverting the reasons which declare for
the latter. How can the sphinx, in its usual position before the entrance of a
temple, designate the king? How can the human face be understood to be personal,
whilst the lion’s body, and all those things which in many cases are added to
it, as the hawk and vulture hovering over the sphinx, be symbolical? How can it
be reconciled with this supposition, that besides the common sphinx or the
Andro-sphinx, the Crio-sphinx and the Hieraco-sphinx, the lion’s body with the
ram’s or hawk’s head, are found?[599] That which is adduced as positive proof
for this theory, is anything but decisive. It rests upon the supposition that
all sphinxes bear the name and title of a king. Allow that this is so, when the
sphinx is intended to represent royal qualities, cannot the name and the title
serve directly to designate the possessor of these symbolized qualities, not
designated by the symbol itself?[600] But where the sphinx has a religious
import, there the inscription may appropriately immortalize the name of the king
who built the temple. Were it true, that the human faces of the sphinxes
represent the countenances of the kings whose name they bear, it might be
accounted for, by supposing that they considered the face of the king as the
most noble representative of the human face.

[599] Wilk. Vol. 111. p. 27.

[600] The crown also and other symbols of royalty, which according to Wilk. Vol.
111. p. 362, are said to be often represented on the sphinxes, are for the same
purpose. The Cherubim—Their Form and Import.

We turn to the cherubim. That this symbol, as such, aside from its significance,
which includes a real, original, Israelitish element, did not spring up on
Jewish ground, appears probable from the merely scattered notices of it which
are found. We cannot, however, appropriate to ourselves the argument which Bauer
has adduced in favor of its foreign origin, namely, that ‘the cherubim was not
first introduced by Moses, since the law speaks of it in a manner that it could
not do, except on the supposition that it was already definitely known among the
people;’ for indeed, at the time in which the law was written down, cherubs with
all the accompanying things, for which Bauer[601] argues in like manner, had
already existed a long time,—a circumstance which could not fail to modify the
record, and cause the thing to appear, in various ways, as if it were well known
at the time of its introduction.

[601] Rel. des Alt. Test. Th. I. S. 300.

We are specially guided to the Egyptian origin of the cherubim, since of all the
people with whom the Israelites in ancient times were closely connected, only
among the Egyptians are compound animals found in history. “Among the Phoenician
animal combinations,” says Bähr,[602] “we only recollect Moloch.” But the
information that the image of Moloch had a bullock’s head is found in R. Simon
Haddarschan, A. D. 1310!![603] And in like manner, it is of no importance what
is found in the same author[604] concerning compound animals among the
Carthaginians.

[602] I. S. 358.

[603] Compare Munter Relig. der Caithag. S. 9.

[604] S. 68. But the real similarity of form between the Hebrew cherubim and the
Egyptian sphinxes is of greater importance. Even in the cherub of Ezekiel, this
agreement is still in a considerable degree perceivable. Two of the same
elements, lion and man, are found here and in the sphinx. But it is generally
agreed that the form of the cherubim in Ezekiel is not the original one, but
that the prophet, as from his whole character cannot be supposed improbable,
expanded variously the symbol.[605] In what the additions and changes consisted
is difficult to determine, since we possess only so very imperfect notices of
the figure of the Mosaic cherubim.[606] But we can show, with great probability,
from Ezekiel himself, that the changes have reference to just those things in
which the cherubim of Ezekiel are unlike the Egyptian sphinxes. Thus, while the
cherubim in Ezekiel 1:10 appear to be made up of four elements, and have four
faces, that of a man, an ox, a lion and an eagle; in Ezekiel 41:18-20, only two
faces, that of a man and of a lion, are ascribed to them. Now we may certainly,
with Lightfoot and Michaelis[607] assume that the two other faces are to be
considered as existing, but not in sight,[608] an assumption which receives
confirmation from Ezekiel 1:10, according to which the ox and the eagle were on
the reverse side. But yet this at least remains in force, that in the cherubim
of Ezekiel, the man and the lion were in front, and therefore when placed
against the wall they only came in sight. This leads us to the result, that the
change before spoken of by Ezekiel, consisted in his addition of the element of
the ox and the eagle, just as also in the sphinxes, to the original and
principal elements, the lion and man, in many cases others are also added.[609]
Thus, the form of the cherubim is reduced almost to that of the sphinx. The only
remaining difference of importance, namely, that the simple cherub yet has two
faces, while the sphinx, although composed of two elements, has only one, is
probably also to be set to the account of Ezekiel. That the Mosaic cherub had
only one face has been rightly shown[610] from Exodus 25:20 : “And their faces
shall be towards one another; towards the mercy-seat shall the faces of the
cherubim be.”

[605] See, e.g. among the ancient writers, Witsius Egyptiaca, p. 158, among
those of modern times, Bähr, S. 311 ff.

[606] Witsius remarks correctly, p. 155: Moses speaks of the form as only
twofold, primum quod passas habuerint alas sursum versus quodque suis alis
obtexerint propitiatorium, dein quod facies habuerint ob versus sibi mutuo
itemque conversas ad propitiatorium.

[607] Bibl. Heb. on this passage.

[608] Alias quatuor, quia hic duae tantum in plano apparebant. Duae itaque aliae
fades concipi debent quasi parieti obversae et ab eo obscuratae. Latuit facies
vitulina a sinistris et facies aquilina a tergo.

[609] See the passage cited from Creuzer, S. 159.

[610] See, e.g. Ges. Thesaurus, same word. As respects the significance of the
cherubim, their real agreement in this particular with the Egyptian sphinxes
cannot be doubted, and the difference and opposition respects not so much the
import of the symbol, as rather the possessor of the qualities signified by
them. “The cherub,” remarks Bähr, who of all writers has comprehended most
correctly and thoroughly the nature of this symbol, “is such a being as standing
on the highest grade of created existence, and containing in itself the most
perfect created life, is the best manifestation of God and the divine life. It
is a representative of creation in its highest grade, an ideal creature. The
vital powers communicated to the most elevated existences in the visible
creation are collected and individualized in it.” Accordingly the difference
would perhaps consist only in this, that in the cherubim, the divine properties
were only indirectly symbolized, so far as they came into view in the works of
creation, whilst in the sphinx, directly, a difference which cannot be
considered important.[611]

[611] The author has signally failed to establish any similarity, much less an
identity between the Hebrew cherubim, and the Egyptian sphinxes. It is utterly
incredible that Moses would have taken an idolatrous emblem and placed it in the
most sacred part of the tabernacle; such a proceeding would have been an
indirect sanction of Egyptian corruptions. On the contrary, the great course of
the Levitical legislation seems directed to changing the habits, and breaking of
the associations which the Israelites formed in Egypt.

Leviticus, Chap. 16, Azazel. An Egyptian reference, it appears to us, must
necessarily be acknowledged in the ceremony of the great atonement day. But in
order to exhibit this reference, we must first substantiate our view of the
meaning of the word עֲזָאזֵל, Azazel, which is, that it designates Satan. And
this can only be seen at a right point of view, if we in the first place, in a
general survey of the whole rite, point out definitely the position which the
word Azazel takes in it.

First, in Leviticus 16:1-10 the general outlines are given, and then follows in
Leviticus 16:11 seq. the explanation of separate points. It is of no small
importance for the interpretation, that this arrangement, a knowledge of which
has escaped most interpreters, be understood. Aaron first offers a bullock as a
sin-offering for himself and his house. He then takes a firepan full of coals
from the altar, with fragrant incense, and goes within the vail. There he puts
the incense on the fire before the Lord, and “the cloud of the incense (the
embodied prayer) covers the mercy-seat which is upon the testimony, that he die
not.” Aaron then takes of the blood of the bullock and sprinkles it seven times
before the mercy-seat. After he has thus completed the expiation for himself, he
proceeds to the expiation for the people. He takes two he-goats for a
sin-offering, לְחַטָּאתLehâtath, for the children of Israel, Leviticus 16:5.
These he places before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation, Leviticus 16:7. He casts lots upon them, one lot for the Lord,
לַיהֹוָהLa Jehovah, and one lot for Azazel, לַעֲזָאזֵֽלLa Azazel, Leviticus
16:8. The goat upon which the lot for the Lord, לַיהֹוָהLa Jehovah, fell,
Leviticus 16:9, he offers as a sin-offering, brings his blood within the vail,
and does with it as with the blood of the bullock. In this way is the sanctuary
purified from the defilements of the children of Israel, their transgressions
and all their sins, so that the Lord, the holy one and pure, can continue to
dwell there with them. After the expiation is completed, the second goat, the
one on which the lot for Azazel, לַעֲזָאזֵֽלLa Azazel, fell, is brought forward,
Leviticus 16:10. He is first placed before the Lord to absolve him,
לְכַפֵּ֣רעָלָ֑יו. Le kassep alaiv.[612] Then Aaron lays both his hands upon his
head, and confesses over him the (forgiven) iniquities, transgressions and sins
of the children of Israel, puts them upon his head, and gives him to a man to
take away, in order that he may bear the sins of the people into a solitary
land,[613]Leviticus 16:22, into the desert, for Azazel, Leviticus 16:10. Then
Aaron offers a burnt-offering for himself, and one for the people.

[612] Verse 10, with 16 and 18.

[613]אֶל־אֶ֣רֶץגְּזֵרָ֑ה, literally, in terram abscissam, sc. a terra habitata.
The Seventy:εἰς γῆν ἄβατον. Vulgate: in terram solitariam.

Now, in respect to language, there can be no objection to interpreting Azazel as
meaning Satan. The exposition below shows this conclusively.[614]

[614] That the Hebrew rootעָזַלcorresponds to the Arabic (Arabic not reproduced)
as was asserted by Bochart as early as his time, and afterwards by Schroder in
Scheid and Groenewood, Lex. Hebr. II. 397, is now generally
acknowledged.עֲזָאזֵל(עֲזַלזֵל) belongs to the form which repeats the second and
third radicals. In reference to this form Ewald in his smaller Grammar, § 333,
remarks: “The form indeed also expresses general intension, but the idea of
continual, regular repetition, without interruption, is also especially
expressed by the repetition of nearly the whole word.” In reference to the
meaning of the word we are referred to the Arabic. The word (Arabic not
reproduced) signifies in that language, semovit, dimovit, removit, descivit; in
the pass. remotus, depositus fuit; and the part. (Arabic not reproduced) means,
a ceteris se sejungens. In like manner, (Arabic not reproduced) signify,
semotus, remotus, abdicatus. Accordingly two explanations ofעֲזָאזֵלrelating to
Satan are furnished, either the apostate (from God) or the one entirely
separate. It is in favor of the latter, 1. that the signification, descivit, is
only a derived one, and 2. that it is appropriate to the abode in the desert.
The goat is sent to Azazel, in the desert, in the divided land (terram
abscissam). How could he then be designated by a more appropriate name than the
separate one? But this explanation, as far as facts in the case are concerned,
is in like manner exposed to no well grounded objections. The doctrinal
significance of the symbolic action, so far as it has reference to Azazel, is
this, that Satan, the enemy of the people of God, cannot harm those forgiven by
God, but they, with sins forgiven of God, can go before him with a light heart,
deride him and triumph over him. The positive reasons, which favor this
explanation and oppose every other, are the following: 1. The manner in which
the phrase לַעֲזָאזֵֽל, for Azazel, is contrasted with לַיהֹוָה, for Jehovah,
necessarily requires that Azazel should designate a personal existence and if
so, only Satan can be intended. 2. If by Azazel, Satan is not meant, there is no
reason for the lots that were cast. We can then see no reason why the decision
was referred to God, why the high priest did not simply assign one goat for a
sin offering, the other for sending away into the desert. The circumstance that
lots are cast, implies that Jehovah is made the antagonist of a personal
existence, with respect to which it is designed to exalt the unlimited power of
Jehovah, and exclude all equality of this being with Jehovah. 3. Azazel, as a
word of comparatively infrequent formation and only used here, is best fitted
for the designation of Satan. In every other explanation, the question remains,
why then (as it has every appearance of being) is the word formed for this
occasion, and why is it never found except here?

4. By this explanation the third chaper of Zechariah comes into a relation with
our passage, entirely like that in which Zechariah 4 of the same prophecy stands
to Exodus 25:31. Here as there, the Lord, Satan and the high-priest appear.
Satan wishes by his accusations to destroy the favorable relations between the
Lord and his people. The high-priest presents himself before the Lord not with a
claim of purity, according to law, but laden with his own sins and the sins of
the people. Here Satan thinks to find the safest occasion for his attack, but he
mistakes. Forgiveness baffles his designs; he is compelled to retire in
confusion.[615] It is evident that the doctrinal import of both passages is
substantially the same, and the one in Zechariah may be considered as the oldest
commentary extant on the words of Moses. In substance we have the same scene
also in the Apocalypse, Revelation 12:10-11 : “The accuser of our brethren is
cast down, who accuses them before our God day and night, and they overcome him
by the blood of the Lamb.”

[615] Christol. Th. S. 33 seq.

5. The relation in which, according to our explanation, Satan is here placed to
the desert, finds analogy in other passages of the Bible, where the deserted and
waste places appear as peculiarly the abode of the evil spirit. See Matthew
12:43, where the unclean spirit cast out from the man is represented as going
through “dry places,” Luke 8:27, and Apocalypse Revelation 18:2, according to
which the fallen Babylon is to be the dwelling of all unclean spirits. 6. To the
reasons already given the Egyptian reference which the rite has according to
this explanation, may be added—a reference which is so remarkable that no room
can remain for the thought that it has arisen through false explanation.

Among the objections to this explanation the one which is most important, and
has exerted the most influence is this, that it gives a sense which stands in
direct opposition to the spirit of the religion of Jehovah. It was this
objection which made so many of the ancient theologians disinclined to interpret
the passage as we have done.[616]

[616] Deyling, e.g. who after he has been candid enough to remark, in the Obss.
Sac. 1 p. 50: Lamed Jehovae et Azazeli prefixum casum eundem, nempe dativum
notat, nec possunt ei significationes diversae in eodem commate uttnbui, yet, p.
51, shrinks back from the explanation of Azazel as meaning Satan, with these
words: Quid fingi potest ineptius absurdiusque, quam deum ex duobus hircis
alterum sibi, alterum diabolo destinasse et offeri jussisse. NonneLeviticus
17:7, sacrificare daemonibus expressis verbis vetat? Lund also gives a similar
explanation, S. 1032. The objections which so many in modern times, even as late
as Bähr have cherished against this interpretation, proceed almost entirely from
this point. Most of its opposers expressly declare themselves as of the same
opinion with Baumgarten-Crusius, who in his Biblical Theology[617] says: “In
fact, could an offering properly be made to the evil spirit, in the desert,
which the common precepts of religion in the Mosaic law as well as the
significance of this ceremony entirely oppose?”

[617] S. 294.

Now, were it really necessary to connect with the explanation of Azazel as
meaning Satan, the assumption that sacrifice was offered to him, we should feel
obliged to abandon it, notwithstanding all the reasons in its favor. Especially
in the manner in which Gesenius[618] understands the passage, it presents an
opposition to the vital being of the religion of Jehovah, so atrociously unjust,
that whoever adopts this cannot think of assenting to that.

[618] In Robinson’s Gesenius, p. 751, it is said: I render it (לַעֲזָאזֵֽל)
without hesitation, the averter, the expiator, averruncusἀλεξίκακος. By this
name I suppose is to be understood originally some idol that was appeased with
sacrifices; but afterwards, as the names of idols were often transferred to
demons, it seems to denote an evil demon dwelling in the desert, and to be
placated with victims, in accordance with this very ancient and also gentile
rite. But nothing is easier than to show that this manner of understanding the
explanation is entirely arbitrary. The following reasons prove that an offering
made to Azazel cannot be supposed:

1. Both the goats were designated in Leviticus 16:5 as a sin-offering. “And from
the congregation of the children of Israel he shall take two goats for a
sin-offering.” That these goats were taken together as forming unitedly one
sin-offering wholly excludes the thought, that one of them was brought as an
offering to Jehovah and the other as an offering to Azazel; and further an
offering which is given to a bad being can indeed never be a sin-offering. The
idea of a sin-offering implies holiness, hatred of sin in the one to whom the
offering is made.[619]

[619] It is acknowledged that this reason would lose its force, if it were
allowable, with Bähr, S. 679, to generalize the meaning ofחַטָּאת,Chatath. It
need not, he remarks, be taken in its most limited sense,as a sin-offering, but
it may be translated in a general way, as the Seventy have done,
byπερὶἁμαρτίας; Aaron shall take the two goats on account of sin. But this
generalizing, of which even the Seventy had no conception, we must consider as
entirelyarbitrary. The wordחַטָּאתhas everywhere only the two significations,
sin and sin-offering, (compare Ges. Thes. s. v.,) and since the first here is
not suitable, only the last can be understood. That this sense is the correct
one here, can the less be doubted, since the word is so often used in the
context itself with this meaning. It is especially required by the antithesis
betweenחַטָּאתandעֹלָה, inverses. Who can doubt that in the connexion with
burnt-offering so frequently occurringחַטָּאתmust designate sin-offering? Just
the same connection ofלְחַטָּאתandלְעוֹלָה, we also have in verse 3.

2. Both the goats were first placed at the gate of the tabernacle of the
congregation, before the Lord. To him therefore they both belong, and when
afterwards one of them is sent to Azazel, this is done in accordance with the
wish of Jehovah and also without destroying the original relation, since the one
sent to Azazel does not cease to belong to the Lord.

3. The casting of lots also shows that both these goats are to be considered as
belonging to the Lord. The lot is never used in the Old Testament except as a
means of obtaining the decision of Jehovah. So then, here also, Jehovah decides
which goat is to be offered as a sin-offering and which shall be sent to
Azazel.[620]

[620] The last two reasons are stated even by Rabbi Bechai upon this passage,
quoted in Mauritius, De Sortione Hebraeorum, p. 35: Uterque hircus iste erat
oblatio domini, ad indicandum non debere nos aliter cogitare de utroque, quam
soli deo benedicto esse oblatum, atque ideo sacerdos statim ab initio hujus
operis duas res istas fecit: nimirum obtulit utrumque hircorum in oblationem dei
et projiciebat sortes super illos: res enim illa, quae opera sortitionis
dividitur, est portio, quae a domino venit, uti scriptum exstat: in sinu
projicitur sors et a deo omnis ejus causa. Quodsi enim sacerdos ipse ore tenus
sanctificasset eos dicens: hic est dei et hic est Asaselis, tunc utramque rem
similem fecisset, quomodo autem non facere licet. Jam vero, cum medio sortis hoc
factum sit, en deus ipse Asaseli hircam dedicat, atque ita ab ipso veniebat
hircus ad eum, sicque deus ipse electionem faciebat, non nos.

4. The goat assigned to Azazel, before he is sent away is absolved: “And the
goat upon whom the lot falls for Azazel, shall be placed alive before the Lord
in order to absolve him,[621]לְכַפֶּר־עָלָיוּ and then send him to Azazel in the
desert.” The act by which the second goat is, as it were, identified with the
first, to transfer to the living the nature which the dead possessed, shows to
what the phrase ‘For a sin-offering’ in Leviticus 16:5 has reference, and what
Spencer indeed perceived,—the two goats, says he, are as it were, one goat,—that
the duality of the goats rests only on the physical impossibility of making one
example represent the different points to be exhibited. Had it been possible, in
the circumstances, to restore life to the goat that was sacrificed, this would
have been done. The two goats in this connexion, stand in a relation entirely
similar to that of the two birds in the purification of the leprous person in
Leviticus 1:4, of which the one let go was dipped in the blood of the one slain.
As soon as the second goat is considered as an offering to Azazel, the
connection between it and the first ceases, and it cannot be conceived why it
was absolved before it was sent away.

[621] The endeavor to give a different sense to these words is vain. The
propositionעַלaccompanyingכָפַרdesignates always and without exception the
object of sin, (compare Bähr, S. 683,) and even in this same
chapterכִפֵּרwithעַלis so used. Even Cocceius says that he cannot find
thatכָפַרwithעַלis used otherwise, nisi vel de personis, pro quibus expiatio
facta, vel de instrumentis cultus sacri altari et similibus.

5. According to Leviticus 16:21, the already forgiven sins of Israel are laid on
the head of the goat. These he bears to Azazel in the desert. But where there is
already forgiveness of sins, there is no more offering.

6. The goat is sent alive into the desert. But in accordance with the view of
the thing in the Old Testament, no animal offering is made without the shedding
of blood.

Thus, therefore, this first and principal objection to the interpretation of
Azazel by Satan is to be considered as fully confuted.[622] What Bähr remarks:
“Now if we understand Azazel as a personal superhuman being, opposed to Jehovah,
the text, Leviticus 16:8, does not permit us to understand the phrase, for
Azazel, in an entirely different sense from that, for Jehovah; on the other
hand, it is necessary to recognize an offering in the second goat, as well as in
the first, both before in Leviticus 16:5 are particularly represented as
appointed for a sin-offering,”[623]—will not easily lead any one into error.
What Bähr here adduces as an argument against the interpretation approved by us,
far more strongly opposes his own, and every other explanation, than that by
Satan. We can, I think, at least, which is the first point insisted on,
understand the לְ in לַיהוָֹה and in לַעֲזָאזֵל, as in the same grammatical
construction. According to our interpretation, one animal, at least in a certain
sense, belongs to Jehovah, and the other to Azazel. The demand that both shall
belong in precisely the same sense as offerings to the one and to the other is
entirely inadmissible, since the contrary is expressly said. The goat which fell
to the share of the Lord, is indeed, according to Leviticus 16:9, offered to him
as a sin-offering, the one which fell to Azazel is, according to Leviticus
16:10, first absolved and then sent alive to him. The hypothesis of Bähr is not
wholly without foundation. The symbol is intended to exhibit diversity on the
ground of a certain equality in the beginning. The design is to oppose the
heathenish and peculiarly Egyptian view, which represents the evil principle as
equally powerful, with equal right to be propitiated in like manner with the
good being. With reference to this notion, two like things were first simply
placed together, in order that the difference between both, and the
dissimilarity of that which is to be done to them, may be presented in so much
the clearer light.

[622]It is worth while to consider also what Schroder, De Azazele Marb. 1725. S.
31, adduces for the intimate relation which the two goats sustain to each other:
Notari et hoc inprimis meretur, ambos hircos in ipsa consecratione ita fuisse
sibi mutuo implexos, ut neutrius ritus seorsim absolvendi, sed utriusque
ceiimoniae pariter inchoandae, alternis vicibus administrandae et junctim quasi
consummandae unius piaculi sacra referre videantur. Uterque accipitur quasi
unus, ad Aharonem adducitur, coram domino sistitur, utriusque sors ducitur: tunc
unus mactatur, ej usque sanguis spargitur; alter impositis cum prece manibus
dimittitur: dum illius exta exemta super altari, caro cum pelle extra castra
cremantur, hic in desertum locum abducitur sicque ambo una expediuntur.
Praecedebat alias in sacrificiis piacularibus simplicibus, una tantum victima
constantibus manuum impositio mactationem; quod inconveniens plane esset
jugulato animali eo ritu peccata imponere: sed quod hoc sacrificium et mori et
superstes esse deberet, unius hirci morte ac sanguine sparse reatus ante
auferendus erat, quam alteri vivo imponeretur poena. Ita sane uterque hircus
deo, ille mactatione, sparsione, incensione, combustione, hic omnia ndelis
populi peccata portans, vindicatus est.

[623]S. 686.

Bähr[624] adduces a second objection: “Nowhere in the Mosaic ritual are Jehovah
and the Devil placed together in a general way, much less then in such a manner,
that lots are cast between the two, in order to determine their claims. This
would have had, in the eyes of the people, an appearance of equality between the
two beings.” But the whole rite, according to our explanation, rather has the
tendency to destroy the inclination existing among a people to believe in such
an equality. The casting of lots, instead of being opposed to this tendency, is
rather firmly established in its favor. This follows directly, if it is only
settled, that according to the view of the Old Testament, the lot is under the
direction of Jehovah. That the casting of lots here is not as a mediation
between the two, so that it as an independent third agency decides to which of
the two the one and to which the other shall fall, is clear from the fact, that
both goats are represented as belonging to the Lord, before the lots are cast,
by the phrase, for a sin-offering, in Leviticus 16:5, and by the direction in
Leviticus 16:7 to place them before the Lord. The passage therefore by no means
exhibits an equality, or even the appearance of it.

[624] S. 687.

Ewald[625] refers to a third objection: “A bad demon, Azazel, which those later
than the exile have first made out from the passage, cannot be found in the
Pentateuch.” But an explanation which is demanded with absolute necessity by the
laws of interpretation, cannot be disproved by such objections. They in any case
have force only when the thing cannot be decided with certainty on exegetical
grounds. And why is it said, that an account of Satan cannot be found in the
Pentateuch? Because it was first notorious after the exile? But even Ewald
allows that the book of Job was composed long before this time, and should it be
asserted that the Satan of this book is still not possessed of the real
attributes of Satan, every one will easily perceive, that that which seems to
favor this belongs only to the poetic drapery. It will vanish as soon as that
only is understood, which is as clear as open day, namely, that the prologue
bears, in the same degree, a poetical character, that the speeches do.

[625] Gr. Gram. S. 243. The hypothesis, that the knowledge of Satan does not
appear among the Israelites until after the exile, has been evidently called
forth by a motive external to the thing itself, by the feeling that this
knowledge is of heathen origin, and consequently able to cast a shadow upon the
truth of the account. But it is scarcely possible to conceive how it can be
believed, that one, even with this object in view, is confined to Persian times.
Is it not unaccountable, that it is not perceived, that just as much is
accomplished by a reference to the Egyptian Typhon as to the Persian Ahriman?
That this view is so firmly adhered to, appears to be explicable, only on the
ground that at the time when this interest first arose, the Zendavesta was just
in fashion, and that as this lost popularity, the hypothesis already
strengthened had become historical tradition, which was received without
argument. From a theological point of view, which according to our belief is the
true and only scientific one, it will, from the nature of the case, be found
almost impossible, that a dogma, which in the later period of the revelation
holds so important a place, should not also at least be referred to in the
statement of the first principles of that revelation. So far, therefore, from
expelling it by force, where it does exist, we are rather inclined to search
carefully for the traces of its existence. Besides, our passage is not the only
one in the Pentateuch which contains intimations of the doctrine of a Satan.
That such a doctrine is also prominent in Gen. Genesis 3, has been shown in
recent times, among others, by Schott,[626]Rosenmueller,[627]Hahn,[628] and in
the Christology.[629] [626] Theol. Dogmat. p. 128.

[627] S. 109.

[628] Dogmat. S. 345.

[629] I. 1. S. 27 ff.

After exhibiting the positive reasons for the explanation of Azazel by Satan,
and obviating the objections to it, we must now also subject to examination
those among the various explanations that have been given, which are now
current, whilst in reference to the rest we refer to Bähr .

According to Ewald,[630] Azazel designates “the unclean, the unholy (literally,
the separate, the abhorred) sin.” But this explanation must, on philological
grounds, be considered as questionable.[631] It however appears much more
untenable, when we examine the context. According to this, what can be the
meaning when it is said in Leviticus 16:10, “to send it to Azazel, לַעֲזָאזֵל,
in the desert?” or in Leviticus 16:26, “he who brings the goat to Azazel,
לַעֲזָאזֵל?” In what sense can it be said that the goat was sent to sin?

[630] Gr. Gram. S. 243.

[631] The signification which Ewald gives to the word is quite unlike that of
the root in the Arabic. No authority is found for the change. It stands entirely
by itself. If it were allowed to proceed in this way,עֲזָאזֵֽלcould signify
something very different still.

Moreover, this explanation has indeed been adopted by no one except its
originator, who has perhaps himself long ago abandoned it. There is another, to
which the authority of Tholuck[632] among others has given more currency, and
which is defended by Bähr:[633] “for complete removal.” As far as philology is
concerned,” says Bähr, very confidently, “there is at any rate no objection to
it.” But we cannot assent to this. The explanation is rather philologically
entirely untenable.[634] [632] The A. T. in the N. T. (Beit. zum Br. an die
Hebr.), S. 80.

[633] S. 668.

[634] The forms likeעֲזָאזֵלare only adjcctira, (compare Ewald Kl. Gram. § 333,)
not abstracta, least of all nominii actionis, which cannot come from words
originally adjectiva.

How little one can succeed with this in the context lies on the surface. Even in
Leviticus 16:8 we do not know how to dispose of it. “A lot for Jehovah and a lot
for complete removal:” this is not congruous. The lot is not to be carried away.
Also the demand for similarity in the use of the prepositions in לַיהוָֹה and
לַעֲזָאזֵל, for Jehovah and for Azazel, will then be grossly violated. We see,
therefore, that we are compelled, at the outset, to modify the explanation with
Tholuck , who translates: ‘one lot for the animal devoted to God; the other lot
for the animal destined for removal.’ But the interpretation, thus modified, is
not congruous, again, in Leviticus 16:10 : ‘the goat on which the lot fell for
Azazel.’ There we cannot translate: ‘for the animal destined for removal,’ but,
‘for complete removal;’ and just so, also, in the last words of the same verse:
‘to send it, לַעֲזָאזֵל, for complete removal, in the desert.’ And if the לְ in
these last two cases can only be interpreted by for (denoting purpose), it is
not proper to translate it in L 16:8, as even the לַיחוָֹה demands by for
(denoting possession).—Also in Leviticus 16:26, this explanation of Azazel is
not suitable. It is there said: he who let go (or sent away) the goat,
לַעֲזָאזֵל. If we here translate: ‘for complete removal,’ it will neither be
said for whom, to whom, or whither, the goat is sent away. That the first (the
individual to whom it is sent) is designated by לַעֲזָאזֵל is so entirely
evident, that any one will scarcely be able to deny it without doing violence to
his conscience as an interpreter.[635]

[635] Theלְinלַעֲזָאזֵלin verse 8 and 10 can the less be explained
byfor(denoting purpose), and some other than a personal being be understood by
Azazel, sinceלְis used in other places to designate the person to whom a lot
belongs. CompareJoshua 19:1—”And the second lot came forthלְשִׁמְע֔וֹןto
Simeon.” Verse 10: “And the third lot came out for the children of
Zebulon,לִבְנֵ֥יזְבוּלֻ֖ן,” and so also in other verses in the same chapter.

If it is now established that Satan is to be understood by the term Azazel, then
an allusion to Egypt, in the whole rite, cannot be mistaken.

Among the great errors which necessarily arise as soon as man having attained to
reflection is abandoned by insight into the depth of human sinfulness, which
insight alone will explain the riddle of human life, is dualism, an error
proportionally harmless, which in Egypt also took very deep root. “Every bad
influence or power of nature, and generally the bad itself, in a physical or
ethical respect,” was there personified under the name of Typhon.[636] [636]
Creuzer, Myth. I. S. 317. The doctrine of a Typhon among the Egyptians, is as
old as it is firmly established. Representations of him are found on numerous
monuments as old as the time of the Pharaohs.[637]Herodotus speaks of Typhon in
2. 144, 56, and 3.5. But Plutarch gives the most accurate and particular
accounts with indeed many incorrect additions.[638] [637] Compare Creuzer, S.
322 ff.

[638] Compare Jablonski, III. p. 59, 60. The barren regions around Egypt
generally belonged to Typhon.[639] The desert was especially assigned to him as
his residence, whence he made his wasting inroads into the consecrated land. “He
is,” says Creuzer,[640] “the lover of the degenerate Nephthys, the hostile
Lybian desert, and of the sea-shore,—there is the kingdom of Typhon; on the
contrary, Egypt the blessed, the Nile-valley glittering with fresh crops, is the
land of Isis.” Herodotus[641] ascribes a similar dwelling to Typhon.[642]

[639] Τὼν ἐσχάτων ἁπτόμενος, Plutarch in Jabl. p. 83.

[640] S. 269.

[641]B. 3. c. 5.

[642] Compare upon this passage, Bähr and Creuzer in Comm. Herod. p. 285. In a
strange but very natural alternation, the Egyptians sought sometimes to
propitiate the god whom they hated, but feared, by offerings, and indeed by
those which consisted of sacred animals. Sometimes, again, when they supposed
that the power of the good gods was prevalent and sustained them against him,
they allowed themselves in every species of mockery and abuse. “The obscured and
broken power of Typhon,” says Plutarch,[643] “even now, in the convulsions of
death, they seek sometimes to propitiate by offerings, and endeavor to persuade
him to favor them; but at other times, on certain festival occasions, they scoff
at and insult him. Then they cast mud at those who are of a red complexion, and
throw down an ass from a precipice, as the Coptites do, because they suppose
that Typhon was of the color of the fox and the ass.” The most important passage
on the worship of Typhon is found on p. 380: “But when a great and troublesome
heat prevails, which in excess either brings along with it destructive sickness
or other strange or extraordinary misfortunes, the priests take some of the
sacred animals, in profound silence, to a dark place. There they threaten them
first and terrify them, and when the calamity continues they offer these animals
in sacrifice there.”[644] [643] De Iside et Os. p. 362.

[644] Compare Comm. upon the passage in Schmidt, De Sacerdotibus et Sacrif. Aeg.
p. 312 seq.

Now the supposition of a reference to these Typhonia sacra, Witsius considers as
a profanation.[645] But it is seen at once that the reference contended for by
him is materially different from that adopted by us. The latter is a polemic
one. In opposition to the Egyptian view which implied the necessity of yielding
respect even to bad beings generally, if men would ensure themselves against
them, it was intended by this rite to bring Israel to the deepest consciousness,
that all trouble is the punishment of a just and holy God, whom they, through
their sins, have offended, that they must reconcile themselves only with him;
that when that is done and the forgiveness of sins is obtained,’ the bad being
can harm them no farther.

[645] Aeg. L. II. c. 9. p. 119: Num permisit suis deus, nedum ut jusserit genium
aliquem averruncum agnoscere, quem sacratis placarent animantibus, aut quicquam
facere abominationibus Aegyptiorum simile.

How very natural and how entirely in accordance with circumstances such a
reference was, is evident from the facts contained in other passages of the
Pentateuch which show how severe a contest the religious principles of the
Israelites had to undergo with the religious notions imbibed in Egypt. This is
especially exhibited in the regulations in Leviticus 17, following directly upon
the law concerning the atonement day, which prove that the Egyptian idol worship
yet continued to be practised among the Israelites. The same thing is also
evident from the occurrences connected with the worship of the golden calf. The
assumption of a reference so specially polemic might indeed be supposed
unnecessary, since in a religion, which teaches generally the existence of a
powerful bad being, the error here combated, the belief that this being
possesses other than derived power, will naturally arise in those who have not
found the right solution of the riddle of human life in the deeper knowledge of
human sinfulness. But yet the whole rite has too direct a reference to a
prescribed practice of propitiating the bad being, and implies that formal
offerings were made to him—such a thing as has never been the product of
Israelitish soil, and could scarcely spring up there, since such an embodying of
error contradicts fundamental principles among the Israelites respecting the
being of Jehovah, which indeed allows the existence of no other power with
itself. And finally, there exists here a peculiar trait, which in our opinion
makes it certain that there is an Egyptian reference, namely, the circumstance
that the goat was sent to Azazel into the desert. The special residence of
Typhon was in the desert, according to the Egyptian doctrine, which is most
intimately connected with the natural condition of the country. There,
accordingly, is Azazel placed in our passage, not in the belief that this was
literally true, but merely symbolically.[646]

[646] To the theory propounded and ably sustained in this section, there are
several important objections, which deserve to be attentively considered. There
are no names of angels in the Pentateuch, and the existence of evil angels,
unless this passage be an exception, is nowhere mentioned in the Mosaic
writings. If Azazel be the proper name of a demon supposed to reside in the
wilderness, and ifLeviticus 16:8must be rendered, “Aaron shall cast lots upon
the two goats, one lot for Jehovah, and the other for Azazel,” it would follow
that Moses taught one of the worst features of Demonolatry, that which consists
in the worship, or, at least, the sacrificial propitiation of an evil being,
from which the whole course of his legislation is abhorrent. The Septuagint,
like our version, renders the word “scape-goat,”αποπομπᾶιος;
Symmachusαπερχόμενος, and Aquilaαπολελύμενος; the Vulgate similarly
hasemissarius, and most of the lexicographers deriveעזאזלAzazel fromעזez, “a
goat,” andאזלazal, “to go away.” To this received interpretation Gesenius makes
two objections, first, thatעזezsignifies only “a she-goat,” and secondly, that
the phrase “for the scape-goat,” is a broken antithesis in relation to the
preceding clause. On examining the passages whereעזezoccurs, we can find no
reason for limiting its gender, (seeGenesis 27:9, andDeuteronomy 14:4,) and the
cognate word in the other Semitic dialects is applied indifferently to goats,
whether male or female. The harshness of the antithesis has been noticed by many
commentators, and some of the Rabbins have proposed to render the passage, “one
lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the desert.” This however does not mend
the matter; and, besides, we are driven to derive the signification
ofעזאזלAzazel, from an Arabic plural of very remote affinity. A further
objection to this rendering is, that it would lead to the conclusion that this
sacrifice was only to be offered during the wanderings of the Israelites in the
desert, but the whole current of Rabbinical tradition shows that it continued
during the whole Jewish polity. Dr Hengstenberg justly remarks, that the later
Jews, as well as the Christians and Mohammedans, speak of an evil angel named
Azazel; but he ought to have mentioned, that this imaginary being belongs to the
legends of Persian or Chaldean origin, which the Jews learned during the
Babylonian captivity. According to the tale, Azazel was one of the Sinus, taken
prisoner when the angels waged war against these imaginary beings; he was
brought up among the conquerors, and educated in their knowledge, but when
required by the Creator to worship Adam, he not only refused but headed a revolt
in heaven; being conquered and banished, he received the name of Ebho from
hisdespair. In this legend there is nothing to identify Azazel with a demon of
the desert, or with any fiction of Egyptian mythology, and therefore, instead of
supporting Dr Hengstenberg’s theory, it gives presumptive evidence against it.
But there is what we think a decisive proof that the Septuagint, the Vulgate,
and the English version, have rightly interpreted the passage, namely, that an
offering analogous to that of the scape-goat is elsewhere enjoined in the
Levitical law. At the purification of a leper, two clean birds were offered, one
of which was sacrificed, and the other let loose into the open field.

Numbers Chap. 19. In the law concerning the manner of purifying those who have
defiled themselves with the dead in Numbers 19, it is said, Numbers 19:2 :
“Speak to the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without
spot, wherein is no blemish and upon which never came yoke.” The inquiry whether
an Egyptian reference is prominent here, must depend upon the significance of
the red color demanded by the law. For, that this is not without significance we
consider as evident without argument. “As respects the red color,” Bähr[647]
correctly says, “this is nowhere else demanded for an animal offering or in
general even any determinate color, so much the less then can it be doubted that
its determination in this case is intentional.” That the color here must have a
significance, has at all times been generally acknowledged, although it has been
declared difficult and in some respects impossible to fully determine its
import; as, for example, the old Rabbins said, that not even Solomon knew why
the heifer must be of red to the exclusion of all other colors.[648] [647] Symb.
2. S. 498.

[648] Compare also Witsius, Aeg. 115: At quae tandem causa dici potest cur, cum
in caeteris sacrifices omnibus sine colorum discrimine munda animantia rite
offerrentur, solam hanc lustralem vaccam rubram esse necesse fuerit?

We maintain that the red color of the heifer serves to characterize it as a
sin-offering. We adduce the following arguments in proof of this assumption:

1. Isaiah 1:18 shows undeniably that the red color in the symbolic language of
the Scriptures denotes sin: “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as
white as snow, though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” The
context, Isaiah 1:15, “Your hands are full of blood,” Isaiah 1:21, “and now
murderers,” shows at once, on what this significance rests, namely, on the fact
that in the shedding of innocent blood their sin was consummated.

2. According to this interpretation both the designated peculiarities of the
beast for sacrifice grow up from one and the same root; as a sin-offering, it is
at the same time a female and red. The answer to the question why a heifer must
here be offered, while in Leviticus 4:14 the rule is laid down that each
sin-offering for the whole congregation shall be a bullock, lies manifestly in
the phrase חַטָּאתהִוא, it is a sin-offering, literally, it is sin, in Numbers
19:9 and Numbers 19:17. Since sin in Hebrew is of the feminine gender, so must
the animal also be which bears its image, which representing it shall atone for
it.

3. According to this explanation, the red color of the heifer corresponds
accurately with the scarlet, with which and cedar wood and hyssop her ashes are
to be mingled. That also this designates sin is evident from Isaiah 1:18,
already quoted, which must be considered as an approved
interpretation.[649]Bähr[650] exerts himself in vain to show that in Hebrew the
scarlet is the symbol of life. He has not adduced in favor of it, the semblance
of a proof. Let it not be said that the scarlet cannot, on account of its union
with cedar and hyssop be a symbol of sin. This connexion which occurs once
besides, in the directions for purifying the leprous person, in Leviticus 14:4,
may be explained as follows: The key for the interpretation of cedar and hyssop
which are not to be separated from one another, as Bähr[651] has done, but must
be considered in connection, as they never appear singly, is furnished by 1
Kings 5:13; 1 Kings 4:33): From the cedar upon Lebanon even to the hyssop that
springeth out of the wall. The cedar as the loftiest among created things—hence
the cedars in Scripture are the cedars of God, Psalms 80:11, (Psalms
80:10),—symbolizes his elevation and majesty; the hyssop on the contrary, as the
least, his lowliness and condescension which David celebrates in Psalms 8.[652]
In the cedar and the hyssop, both the divine qualities are represented which are
exercised in the atonement and forgiveness of sin; his majesty which gives the
right and power, and his lowliness and compassionate love which ensures the
will. The scarlet represents the object with reference to which both these
divine qualities are exercised, the occasion for which they are displayed.[653]

[649] Theשְׁנִיתוָלַעַתin Numbers 19 is in Isaiah separated:שָׁנִימis in the
first clause, andתוֹלָעin the second.

[650] Symbol. 1. S. 334 ff.

[651]II. p. 503.

[652] ComparePsalms 18:36.

[653] Grotius was substantially in the right way of explaining this rite, when
he remarked upon Leviticus 14 : Superbiam cedrus significat, vermiculus, sive
coccinum peccatum, et hyssopus oppositam virtutem,ταπεινοφροσύνην. He erred
only in making the sinner instead of God, the possessor of the attributes
represented by cedar and hyssop. Bähr says, Th. 2. S. 503: “Purifying power is
ascribed to the hyssop inPsalms 51:9. But why? it is asked, and this question
cannot be answered from the passage itself, but from the ‘locus classicus’ to
which David the same as expressly refers. If it is correctly understood, this
verse of the Psalms 51 also appears in its true light. It is the condescending
love and pity of God in which David takes refuge, when he desires to be purged
with hyssop.

4. The reference of the red color to sin is in accordance with the spirit of the
whole rite described in Numbers 19. Everything in it points to the fact that the
consciousness of sin unfolds itself in death, the image and recompense of
sin.[654] The whole has the remembrance of sins, ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν,Hebrews
10:3, for its object. Since the sin-offering here represents sin, and is
designed to awaken the consciousness of the odiousness of sin for itself, it
cannot be slain in the holy place like all other offerings, but this must rather
be done out of the camp. While in other cases of sin-offering for the people,
the blood was sprinkled seven times before the vail,[655] it was here from
without the camp, sprinkled only in the direction of the vail.[656] The whole
animal was burned, and not even a part of it was laid on the altar as in the
case of other sin-offerings for the congregation. The ceremony notwithstanding
its importance was not performed by the high priest himself, who must not defile
himself, but by the oldest of his sons; and even he performed only that which
must necessarily be done by a priest; all the rest was executed by persons who
were not priests. All the persons employed were defiled, even the water of
purification polluted the clean person. The clean man who performed the
purification, was in consequence of doing this, impure until evening, and must
then wash his garments and bathe himself; according to Numbers 19:21, every
person who touched the water of purification was unclean.

[654]This appears so much the more as such, when we take into account the
immediate occasion of this law. “Occasionem praebente,” remarks Deyling, Obss.
Sac. p. 73, pollutorum multitudine in castris Israelitarum qui ex cadaveribus
seditiosorum cum Korah tumultum contra Mosem excitaret, contaminati erant.” Yet,
in this case, the general import of death is only shown in a particularly
conspicuous manner. That according to the Israelitish view death generally is
considered as the image and recompense of sin, is shown byGenesis 2:17;Genesis
3:19.

[655]Leviticus 4:17.

[656] Bähr, S. 501.

These are the reasons which declare in favor of our interpretation. But the
following objection is raised against it. It can scarcely be conceived how that
by which sin is to be removed can itself be characterized as sin. “Indeed all
sin-offerings are themselves considered as something most holy after death, so
that they can be eaten only by holy persons, by priests.” Every thought of sin
is here especially excluded by the phrase “a perfect one, in which is no
blemish, and on which yoke never came.” The most simple and natural answer to
this objection is this: If the heifer could be called sin, (the word חַטָּאת
means literally only this, not sin-offering,) its color could as well at least,
symbolize the same thing. When the symbol thus interpreted is explained as
inappropriate, the name is also, and the way is closed against its
justification. Farther, the same antithesis which is considered as inadmissable
in the qualifications of the heifer, and which it is attempted to exclude, are
seen everywhere throughout the whole rite, so that nothing is gained, if it is
forcibly excluded here. As the purifying power which exists in the ashes of the
offering corresponds with the declaration, “a perfect one, and in which is no
blemish,” and is founded on this quality; so the fact that all who come in
contact with the animal and his ashes are defiled, is in accordance with the
character of sin expressed by the gender and color.

If we go back to the idea of substitution, which lies at the basis of all
sin-offerings, the twofold character which is carried through the whole rite is
explained. The substitution at once requires two things: original purity and
imputed impurity, or natural sinlessness and assumed sinfulness. The union of
both appears most conspicuous in the antitype of all sin-offerings, in him whom
when he knew no sin God made to be sin for us.[657]

[657] Compare Deyling, Obss. Sac. p. 78: “Haec enim vacca, quaeתְמִימָה, ab omni
macula esse debebat immunis, ob suscepta tamen inquinamenta populi immundissima
facta est, quid aliud significavit, quam Christum. Hunc enimμὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν,ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ,”2
Corinthians 5:21. The twofold nature which belongs to sin-offerings generally,
and specially to this one, is explained with substantial correctness by Spencer,
p. 503: “E legis usa factum est, ut animalia omnia ad peccatum et immunditiem
tollendam seposita, puritatem quidem offerentibus, maximam autem immunditiem
sibi ipsis conciliarent: prout aqua ad manus a sordibus purgandas usurpata
lavanti quidem munditiem affert, dum interim puritatis propriae jacturam
patitur. Ille, cui hircum piacularem dimittendi provincia demandata est et
sacerdos qui juvencum pro expiatione combussit, immundi facti sunt, nec iis ad
sanctuarium aditus concessus, donee vestes et corpora abluissent; eo quod populi
immunditiae in animalia illa, prout corporis sordea in aquam purgatricem
transire atque adhaerere crederentur.” Pfeiffer expresses himself still more
definitely, Dubia Vex. p. 290: “Polluebat mundos, quia imputative erat piaculum
sive catharma, praefigurans Christum, pro nobis factumκατάραν.Galatians 3:13,2
Corinthians 5:21. Mundabat veroῥαντισμόςaquae, ejus cinere et quasi
pulverisato sanguine mistae pollutos, designansῥαντισμὸνsanguinis Christi nos
ab omnibus peccatis mundantis et expiantis.

It might be further objected, that it is inadmissible to understand here, that
in the gender and color of the animal sin is signified, while in other
sin-offerings, the quality common to them with this is not symbolized in this
way. But this objection is entirely without force, since the feminine gender and
red color are peculiar to this case. But only in accordance with our view can an
appropriate explanation of the peculiarity of this case be given. Since sin was
here made so specially prominent a thing, and was even symbolized by gender and
color, as is done in no other case, it is clear that this uncleanness was the
greatest of all, that the lawgiver aimed at awakening a just abhorrence of
death, and accordingly of sin whose type and penalty it is. In it is also shown,
in the most striking manner, that we are dead through trespasses and sins,
νεκροὶ τοῖς παραπτώμασι καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις.[658] [658] Ephesians 2:1;Ephesians
2:5,Colossians 2:13.

If it be now established, that the red heifer was a type of sin, we have a
remarkable parallel from Egyptian antiquity. “In the symbolic colors, as
arranged by the Egyptians,” says Drumann, in the passage before quoted, “black
was the color of death and mourning, for slaughter and its author the red color
was chosen.” Herodotus[659] says, the animals designated for sacrifice were
among the Egyptians accurately examined beforehand, and if only one black hair
was found on the bullock, it was proved unsuitable for offering. What
Plutarch[660] says in his book on Isis and Osiris, performs the office of a
commentary on this passage. We see from it, that the animals offered must be
throughout entirely red: “The Egyptians, since they suppose that Typhon is of a
red complexion, devote to him red bullocks, and they institute so close an
inspection of them, that they consider the animal unfit for sacrifice if a
single black or white hair is found on him.” Besides, says Plutarch, the
Egyptians celebrated certain feast days, on which they, in order to revile and
disgrace Typhon, abused men who had red hair. Diodorus,[661] of Sicily, says, in
ancient times the Egyptians offered men, who like Typhon had red hair, at the
tomb of Osiris.

[659]B. 2. c. 38.

[660]P. 363. A.

[661] 1. 88.

Now the choice of red color to designate the evil and the base is not certainly
arbitrary. It depends in all probability among the Egyptians, as among the
Hebrews, upon the fact that red is the color of blood.[662] Thence it might be
supposed that both of these nations came independently of one another to one and
the same symbolic designation. With reference to this, it is proper to remark
further, that these two are the only nations among whom red is found as a fixed
and nationally recognized designation of evil, and that the connection of the
color with the thing designated is a looser one, than, for example, in the case
of white as the color of innocence, and black as the color of mourning, then
also, it may be added, that among both these nations this symbolic view obtains
influence directly upon the offering of sacrifices, among the Israelites only in
particular cases, but among the Egyptians generally. If we take this into
consideration, a dependence of one of these nations upon the other will appear
very probable, and then we can decide for ourselves whether the origin of the
symbolic designation was not among the Egyptians.

[662] According to Bähr, Symbol. Th. 2. S. 234, Typhon has the red color, “as
the personified burning heat, which dries up the fertilizing Nile, and scorches
everything.” But no proof for this derivation of the red color is adduced. We
could quote in our favor Goulianof, who, in the Archéologie Ég., Leipz. 1839. t.
3. p. 89 seq., has a separate section entitled: Étude des allegories de la
couleur rouge, in which it is attempted to show, that red as the color of blood
is the color of impiety. Compare the section, p. 422 seq.: Étude des allég.
attaches a la couleur pourpre ou éccarlate. But we do not consider him as good
authority.

Finally, it is evident from the foregoing remarks, that the Egyptian reference
in Num. Numbers 19, by no means respects the whole rite, but is a very partial
one; it is limited to the identity of the symbolic import of the red color, to
which may perhaps also be added, that the color has an influence in the choice
of the victim.[663] There is no direct authority, for finding, with
Spencer,[664] who has followed Thomas Aquinas and Du Voisin, in the choice of
the heifer instead of the bullock, which on other occasions was taken, a
reference, and indeed a hostile one, to an Egyptian custom,—he supposes the
designation of the heifer for an offering of purification is a practical
derision of the Egyptian notion of the sacredness of the cow,—since the choice
of the heifer is sufficiently explained by the reasons already given, without
such a reference. Yet it may be remarked, that the position taken by us, by no
means excludes the reference claimed by Spencer, but on the other hand, both may
very easily be reconciled. If the heifer was chosen instead of the bullock
commonly offered, in order to designate it as impersonated sin, there would even
in this be found the strongest opposition to the Egyptian notion of the
sacredness of the cow.

[663]Witsius, Aeg. p. 115, seeks to destroy the connection between the red
bullock which was sacrificed by the Egyptians and the red heifer, by the
following remarks: Aegyptii rufos boves immolabant non qnod pretiosiores eos aut
diis suis gratiores esse existimarent, sed ex odio et contemptu. Dictabant
enimθύσιμον οὐφίλον εἶναι θεοῖς. (Compare Schmidt, De Sacerdotibus et
Sacrif. Aeg. Bähr, Symbol. Th. 2. S. 235.) But if the significance of the red
color of the heifer is correctly determined, this remark serves rather to bring
both nearer each other.

[664] This author, p. 486, after he has referred to passages by which it is
proved that the cow is considered sacred among the Egyptians, says: Cum itaque
eo dementiae et impietatis prolapsi essent Aeg., ut vaccam tanto cultu studioque
honorarent: deus vaccam multa cum cerimonia mactari voluit et lixivium ex illius
ceneribus ad populi immunditias expurgandas confici; ut Aeg. vanitatem
sugillaret et per hanc disciplinam, cum Aegypti more sensuque pugnantem,
Israelite ad cultus illius vaccini contemptum atque odium sensim perducerentur.

Laws with Reference to Food. The Egyptians and the Israelites stand alone among
the nations of antiquity, in reference to the great care which they bestowed
upon the selection of food. Among both, regulations of this kind had extensive
influence. Through these laws, some of the most important means of subsistence
were either withdrawn, or at least made odious, as, for example, fish, which
could not be eaten by the priests,[665] and the leguminous fruits.[666] How much
the regulations which had reference to food influenced them in life, is best
shown by the passages collected by Spencer.[667] [665] See Herod. 2. 37. Plut.
De Isid. et Os. p. 363.

[666] Larcher zu Herod. 2. S. 252 ff.

[667] Page 130. See also the wonderful passage of Porphyry, De Abstinentia, B.
4. c. 7. This fact indeed leads us to conjecture, that the Israelitish laws
respecting food, were not without an allusion to Egyptian customs. If no such
thing Is supposed, the coincidence perceived between the two nations appears
very remarkable. That the admission of such a reference detracts from the
dignity of the Israelitish law, no one should affirm. This depends wholly upon
the manner in which the reference is understood. That a distinction of food
originated very anciently, is indeed certain without argument, since the
different nature of animals, in very many respects, speaks a language of signs,
clear without reasoning to the allegorizing mind of antiquity. Thus, we find,
even in the time of the flood,[668] the distinction made between the clean and
unclean beasts and birds. But that a beginning merely was made so anciently,
these same passages show, since there is not a trace of a distinction between
the clean and unclean wild beasts found in them. Now in Egypt from these first
elements a complete system was formed. The Mosaic code of laws found a people
which was accustomed to a distinction of food of extensive application. In these
circumstances it was natural,—which, in case the Israelites yet occupied the
position of the patriarchs, would have been entirely unnatural,—that the laws of
diet had reference, not merely to individual things, but that they extended into
the whole province concerned, even to its furthest limits, and arranged all its
parts with respect to the fundamental idea of the Israelitish religion. The fear
of too great minuteness could not here have had any place, since the laws were
made for a people accustomed to law, and its advantages and blessings would not
be allowed to remain unenjoyed. Besides, if the ground had been left unoccupied,
it would have been immediately seized upon, or rather retained in possession by
the opposer, whom it was important to expel from the borders of the Israelitish
jurisdiction in which he had already so strongly intrenched himself.

[668]Genesis 7:2-3;Genesis 8:20. Not the existence alone of certain dietetic
rules is common to the Egyptians and Israelites, but they also both agree in
this, that these regulations have in them a religious-ethical significance. In
respect to those of the Israelites, this could be denied, and a mere dietetic
object asserted only in a time, which through its peculiar impiety has lost the
key to those phenomena which take root on religious ground. From the reception
of dietetic reasons merely, the designation of animals not to be eaten as
unclean, an abomination, a terror, is not accounted for, neither is the founding
of the prohibition, on the declaration that Israel “is a consecrated people to
the Lord its God;” nor this command: “its dead body you shall not touch.” This
permission: “To the stranger which is in thy gates mayest thou give it, that he
may eat it, or thou mayest sell it to a stranger,” is also explainable only on
the supposition that the uncleanness was founded on symbolic reasons, which
applied only to the Israelites. We have in Deuteronomy 23:18 (Deuteronomy
23:19), as good as an express declaration of the reason of the prohibition of
certain kinds of food: “Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot and the price
of a dog, i.e. (as appears from Deuteronomy 23:17 (of licentious men, into the
house of the Lord.” From which we see that the dog and other animals placed on
an equality with it, as the representatives of moral uncleanness, were unclean.
Indeed, in accordance with the general character of the law, it cannot be
supposed to have a dietetic object. Moses would fall entirely below his station,
if he here for the time acted as a mere guardian of health by appealing to the
fears of the people.[669]

[669] Besides, even Spencer argued against the dietetic view: “deum animaKa
nonnulla inter impura imposuisse, quae veterum gula non tantum salubria sed
mensarum suarum delitias habuit,” e.g. the hare. That also among the Egyptians
the prohibitions of food rest on religious-moral grounds cannot be doubted. They
abstain from that food which stands in any supposed relation to Typhon, the evil
principle; and the reason of the hatred against certain animals lies, among
them, above all in this, that they are considered the representatives and the
physical manifestation of Typhon, as Typhoically infected. Thus they abstain,
according to Plutarch,[670] from fish, because they come out of the sea, which
belongs to the dominion of Typhon. The swine was hated by them, on account of
its filthy habits, as the incarnation of the unclean spirit. “In general,” says
Plutarch, “they consider all hurtful plants and animals as well as all
unfortunate events, as the acts of Typhon.”[671] To the religious significance,
a moral was joined. The representatives of Typhon, in the animal kingdom, were
considered at the same time as symbols of the men devoted to him. “The guilty
person,” remarks Champollion,[672] “appears under the figure of huge swine, upon
which is written, in great letters, ‘gormandizing and gluttony,’ without doubt
the capital crime of the culprit, perhaps of a glutton of that time.”

[670] De Isid. p. 363.

[671] Compare upon the relation in which unclean animals are placed to Typhon,
Jablonski Panth. Aeg. 3. p. 67, 8.

[672] Briefe, S. 153. But together with this agreement between the Egyptian and
the Israelitish regulations in respect to food, there is a very important
difference, which is adapted to meet all apprehensions which might arise from a
supposed too near contact of the two, and which fully excludes the supposition
of a crude transferring of a heathenish institution. Among the Egyptians, the
separation between the rational and irrational creation was removed,[673] and
accordingly the uncleanness of animals was to them something indwelling and
physical; a swine and a man given to excess, were entirely in a like manner the
creatures of Typhon. The eating of the flesh of animals belonging to Typhon,
introduced with it a Typhonic element into the one eating. Entirely otherwise
was it, according to the divine law. At the very commencement of the Pentateuch,
the limit between the rational and brute creation is strongly drawn. Man only
has the image of God, and therefore he alone can properly be the subject of
cleanness and uncleanness; and when mention is there made of these qualities in
the animal kingdom, this can be only as a symbol and representative of that
which belongs to the reasoning creation. On Jewish ground only, such laws
respecting food could find place, and notwithstanding their formal abrogation,
they will for substance always exist.

[673]The notions of the Egyptians with regard to animals, were, many of them,
strange and exceedingly ridiculous. Many of them were looked upon as deities,
and worshipped, throughout the country. Others were mere emblems of the gods.
Some were honoured as good, and others were execrated as bad. The same animal
was venerated in one province, and served up, as a delicacy of the table, in
another. Keepers, of both sexes, were appointed to take charge of the sacred
animals, and a revenue was provided for the maintenance both of the keepers and
the animals. This employment was considered particularly honourable, and was
executed by persons of the first caste. While living, animals were treated with
all the respect which belongs to the most honoured human beings; and although
they could neither understand nor enjoy them, were provided with all the
luxuries and surrounded by all the comforts which wealth can bestow; and when
they died, they were lamented and embalmed as if they were most dear friends.
Different authors have attempted to account for these facts in different ways.
After enumerating several theories,Wilkinson(Manners and Customs, Second Series,
Vol. II. p. 108) says : “It is therefore evident, that neither the benefits
derived by man from the habits of certain animals, nor the reputed reasons for
their peculiar choice as emblems of the gods, were sufficient to account for the
reverence paid to many of those they held sacred. Some, no doubt, may have been
indebted to the first-mentioned cause; and, however little connection appears to
subsist between those animals and the gods of whom they were the types, we may
believe that the ox, cow, sheep, dog, cat, vulture, hawk, Ibis, and some others,
were chosen from their utility to man. We may also see sufficient reasons for
making some others sacred, in order to prevent their being killed for food,
because their flesh was unwholesome, as was the case with certain fish of the
Nile,—a precaution which extended to some of the vegetables of the country. But
this will not account for the choice they made in many instances ; for why
should not the camel and horse have been selected for the first, and many other
common animals and reptiles for the last mentioned reason? There was, as
Porphyry observes, some other hidden motive, independent of these; and whether
it was, as Plutarch supposes, founded on rational grounds, (with a view to
promote the welfare of the community,) on accidental or imaginary analogy, or on
mere caprice, it is equally difficult to discover it, or satisfactorily to
account for the selection of certain animals, as the exclusive types of
particular deities.” The Institution of the Holy Women. An Egyptian reference is
undeniable in the Israelitish institution of the holy women. The first and
principal passage upon it is in Exodus 38:8—”And he made the laver of brass, and
its foot of brass, of the mirrors of the female servants who served at the gate
of the tabernacle of the congregation.” That the institution did not probably
end with the Mosaic period, but rather continued through the whole period of the
kings, we see from 1 Samuel 2:22, where, among the great crimes of the sons of
Eli, it is mentioned that they defiled the women which served at the gate of the
tabernacle. An inquiry concerning the nature of this institution was instituted
in the Contributions, and we will insert what was there said here. The service
before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, is designated as the
employment of these women. עָבָא signifies military service. Figuratively it
stands, therefore, for the militia sacra of the priests and Levites, Numbers
4:23; Numbers 4:35; Numbers 4:43; Numbers 8:25. Their leader and standard-bearer
is the God of Israel. In addition to the sacred host composed of men, there
appears in our passage a corresponding one consisting of women: and the manner
in which it is spoken of, shows that it was a general, important and formally
organized institution. The expression in the passages referred to, does not
imply, that they had external service at the tabernacle—only by an inapposite
reference to the German use of the word service (Dienen), has this idea been
found in it—and it must be altogether doubtful whether they were so employed.
Neither the law nor history give any information of the service of the women at
the tabernacle in this sense. That the ancient Jews did not understand that any
such occupations were implied in our passage, that it on the contrary has
reference to spiritual service, to offices which have direct reference to the
worship of God which the women were occupied with at the sanctuary, is shown by
the paraphrase of the Alexandrian translators, who substitute for ‘service,’
‘fasting,’ ἐκ τῶν κατόπτρων τῶν νηστευσασῶν, ἁὶ ἐνήστευσαν, as well as by that
of Onkelos, who, in remarkable agreement with these, translates the same word by
‘to pray.’ Aben-Ezra understands it in the same way: “They came daily to the
tabernacle to pray and to hear the words of the law.” But of special importance
for understanding what this service was, is the third passage upon the
institution of the holy women, which shows that it continued even to the time of
Christ. It is found in Luke 2:37, where it is said of Anna: “who departed not
from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.” The
relation of this passage to Exodus 38:7, is the more distinct if we compare it
with the translation of the Seventy and of Onkelos. If we take these into the
account, we shall also find a reference to the Jewish institution in 1 Timothy
5:5—”Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and
continueth in supplications and prayers night and day,” a reference which
implies that the service of the women was not performed with the hands but with
the heart. This institution had a strictly ascetic character. This is evident
from the fact—in connexion with Exodus 25:1, where Moses is required to take
from the Israelites free-will offerings for the construction of the sanctuary:
“from every one whose heart moves him shall ye take my offering,”[674]—that the
article which the holy women gave was their looking-glasses, their means of
pleasing the world. This giving up of the use of the mirror is of the same
nature as the leaving of the hair to grow in the case of the Nazarites, by which
they gave a practical demonstration that they, for the time in which this was
done, renounced the world, in which the cutting of the hair belongs to the
proprieties of social life, so that they might serve God only. The new use to
which Moses devoted the mirrors, also indicated that the offering of them had
this significance. This gives, in addition to the negative, the positive reason.
Not for the world, but for God, ought we to adorn ourselves, and seek to please
him alone.[675] [674] Comp.Exodus 38:24seq. and Num. chap. 7.

[675]1 Peter 3:3-4.] That women of rank devoted themselves to the Lord is
evident indeed from the nature of the case,—where such a way is once opened, it
will be trodden by more in proportion of the higher than of the lower order of
people—and it is also especially evident from the mention which is made of the
mirror. Metal mirrors were, as even the fact that they were offered shows, an
article of luxury, and they are represented as such also in the third chapter of
Isaiah. That the institution has an Egyptian reference, is very probable without
argument, from the circumstance that it was, in all probability, not introduced
by Moses by a law, but was found by him as an already-existing institution. It
evidently arose of itself, from the Israelitish manner of life; and since this
stood under manifest Egyptian influences, we should expect to find an analogous
Egyptian institution, after which the Israelitish one was, in form, copied,
whilst the spirit of both institutions must necessarily be as different as the
service of the Holy One of Israel from the natural religion of the Egyptians.
This expectation is accordingly entirely realized. Among classical writers
Herodotus first mentions the holy women among the Egyptians. He[676] says,
“concerning the two oracles, namely, among the Greeks and in Lybia, the
Egyptians gave me the following account: The priests of Jupiter at Thebes said
that two holy women (literally priestesses) were carried away from Thebes by the
Phoenicians, and they had learned that one of them was sold in Lybia and the
other in Greece. And these women were the first founders of the oracles among
these people.” Further, it is said: “If the Phoenicians really carried away the
holy women,” and: “As was natural, she who ministered at Thebes in the temple of
Jupiter was mindful of him in the place to which she came.”[677] Besides
Herodotus also[678] alludes to the institution of the holy women in Egypt in
other places. “In the temple (of Belus at Babylon) there stands a great couch
beautifully spread and near it is placed a table of gold. But there is no image
there and no mortal passes the night there, except sometimes one native-born
woman, whoever, as the Chaldeans say, the God chooses from all who are his
priests. These same Chaldeans relate also, but I do not believe them, that the
God comes sometimes into the temple and sleeps upon the bed, just as the
Egyptians relate of Thebes, for there also a woman sleeps in the temple of the
Theban Jupiter. Both these women they say, never have intercourse with man. So
also at Patarain Lycia, there is a chief priestess of the God when he is there,
for there is not always an oracle at this place, but when he is there, she is
shut up at night with him in the Temple.”

[676] B. 2. c. 54.

[677] B. 2. c. 56.

[678] B. 1. e. 181, 2.

Diodorus[679] of Sicily speaks of “The concubines of Jupiter,” that is, of Amon.
Strabo[680] says: “But to Jupiter whom they most honor, a very beautiful and
noble young woman is devoted, whom they call the Grecian Pallas; but this one
has intercourse with whatever men she wishes until she arrives at the age of
womanhood. After that she is married. But before her marriage there is a
lamentation made for her. What Strabo here says of the impurity of the young
woman devoted to Amon rests without doubt upon the misunderstanding of the
expression, “The concubines of Amon.” Herodotus gives us a contrary account:
“These women are said never to have intercourse with a man,” and in another
place, he says that among the Egyptians impurity is excluded from the circuit of
the holy places, in which these women had their abode.[681]

[679] B. 1. 47.

[680] B. 17. 1171.

[681] The declaration of Strabo concerning the impurity of the holy women is
confuted also by Rosellini I. 1. p. 216, and Wilkinson, Vol. I. p. 259. The
monuments confirm the accounts of classical writers.[682] The data which they
furnish are found collected in Wilkinson,[683] where there is also an
engraving[684] of the holy women given, and in Rosellini,[685] according to whom
these young women bore the title of “bride of God.” See also Minutoli’s[686]
Travels where it is said in the innermost part of the temple at Carnac: “Near
the king and the priests maidens are also seen represented.”

[682]Mr Wilkinson, in his Manners and Customs, Second Series, I. p. 203, says of
the sacred women among the Egyptians : “That certain women, of the first
families of the country, were devoted to the service of the god of Thebes, is
perfectly true, as I have had occasion already to remark ; and they were the
same whom Herodotus mentions under the name ofηυναῖκας ἰρηῖας,or ‘sacred
women, consecrated to the Theban Jove.’ The statement of Diodorus, that their
sepulchres were distant from the tomb of Osymandyas ten stadia, or little more
than 6000 feet, agrees perfectly with the position of those where the Queens and
princesses were buried, in the Necropolis of Thebes ; and is highly
satisfactory, from its confirming the opinion formed from the sculptures
respecting the office they held. For though we are unable to ascertain the exact
duties they performed, it is evident that they assisted in the most important
ceremonies of the temple, in company with the monarch himself, holding the
sacred emblems which were the badge of their office; and the importance of the
post is sufficiently evinced by the fact that the wives and daughters of the
noblest families of the country, of the high-priests, and of the kings
themselves, were proud to enjoy the honour it conferred.”

[683] Vol. 1. p. 258 seq.

[684] p. 260.

[685] I. 1. p. 216.

[686] S. 181. The characteristic peculiarities in which the Israelitish agrees
with the Egyptian institution of the holy women are the following: 1. Among the
Israelites as among the Egyptians, the holy women with all the respect which
they enjoy, still are not priestesses; among both the priesthood belongs only to
the men. What Herodotus mentions in B. 2. c. 35 as a distinguishing peculiarity
of the Egyptians: “A woman never performs the office of a priest for a god or
goddess,”[687] applies also accurately mutatis mutandis, to the Israelites.

[687]Ἱρᾶται γυνὴμὲν οὐδεμία οὔτε ἔρσενος θεοῦοὔτε θηλέης,ἄνδρες
δὲπάντων τε καὶπασέων.

2. That the holy women among the Israelites had no external service in the
tabernacle of testimony, that their service was rather a spiritual one, we have
already seen. Just so is it among the Egyptians. That their holy women were not
as Bähr[688] supposes, servants of the priests, (hierodulen) is sufficiently
proved by the quotations from Herodotus.[689] He says, indeed, that they served
the temple of Jupiter at Thebes.[690] But that their service, just as in Exodus
38, is to be understood as spiritual service, the account shows, since these
Egyptian women are supposed to have founded the oracles in Greece and Lybia. If
they served Jupiter in these countries by foretelling future events, they were
also employed in a similar manner in their father-land.

[688] Zu Herod. B. 2. c. 54.

[689] B. 2. c. 54-56.

[690]Ὥσπερ ἦν οἶκὸς ἀμφιπολεύουσαν ἐν Θήβῃσι ἱρὸν Διὸς ἔνθα
ἀπίκετο,ἐνθαῦτα μνήμην αὐτοῦἔχειν.

3. That also among the Israelites, noble women especially were devoted to the
service of the temple was previously shown. Just so was it among the Egyptians.
According to Strabo,[691] the most beautiful and the most noble maidens were
devoted to Jupiter or Amon. Wilkinson says, whilst speaking of the tombs of the
holy women described by Diodorus, which are now seen at Thebes in a valley 3000
feet behind the ruins of Medeenet Haboo: “The sculptures show that they were
women of the highest rank, since all the occupants of these tombs were either
the wives or daughters of kings.” Rosellini[692] says: “We shall find in the
sequel, also other examples of royal young maidens devoted to Amon, from which
it may be inferred that it was a custom in the earliest period of the Pharaohs
to place by this rite some of the king’s daughters in a nearer relation to
religion.”

[691]Εὐειδεστάτη καὶγένουβ λαμπροτάτου παρθένος.

[692] P. 217. I.

4. That the holy women among the Israelites were always unmarried, either young
women or widows, has been shown in the Contributions.[693] Just so also is it
with the holy women among the Egyptians. According to Herodotus[694] the brides
of Amon were excluded from all intercourse with men.[695] According to Strabo
the most beautiful and noble young women were devoted to Jupiter, and when they
wished to marry, there was previously a great lamentation made for them as for
one dead.[696] [693] Th. III. S. 142-3.

[694]B. 1. c. 182.

[695]Καὶγὰρ δήἐκεῖθι κοιμᾶται ἐν τῷτοῦΔιὸς τοῦθεβαιέος
γυνή·ἀμφότεραι δὲαὖται λέγονται ἀνδρῶν ἐς ὁμιλίην φοιτᾶν.

[696]Πρὶν δὲδοθῆναι,πένθος αὐτῆς ἄγεται μετὰτὸν τῆς ταλλακείας. This
lamentation on leaving this community agrees remarkably with the mourning of the
daughter of Jephtha when she entered it. In both cases it depends upon the view
of the exclusiveness of the relation. The Nazarites. From the institution of the
holy women we turn to that of the Nazarites. We must naturally expect an
Egyptian reference more or less distinct here also. For the institution of the
Nazarites originated, not by the appointment of the lawgiver, but it is implied,
in Num. Numbers 6, as an existing institution, and is there only sanctioned. But
if we examine the matter more closely, we perceive indications of Egyptian
influence, yet it is less conspicuous here, than in the institution of the holy
women. For the institution in general, Egypt furnishes no parallel. An Egyptian
reference can be pointed out for only a single feature of the system, the
leaving of the hair to grow, and that is one which has no connection with
religion, but with the customs of the people. Finally, the single allusion to
Egypt, although truly worthy of notice, is still not so characteristic that we
could with full certainty assert its existence.

It is necessary for our purpose, that we first determine the significance of
leaving the hair unshorn by the Nazarite. We begin with an examination of the
view of Bähr.[697] The obligation of the Nazarite, he asserts, to let the hair
grow freely, has its basis in the idea of holiness. Among the orientals, and
especially among the Hebrews, the hair of the head is the same as the products
of the earth, the grass of the field, and the growth of the trees. Especially in
accordance with this is the naming of the vine in the year of jubilee, נָזִיר
(nazyr), in Leviticus 25:5, since they prune it not this year, but allow its
leaves and branches to grow freely. From this it is evident, that the growth of
the hair, according to oriental view, signifies grass, shoots, blossoms of men.
But in so far as the Hebrew looked upon men as distinctively moral beings, the
human blossoms and shoots represent holiness.

[697] Symbol. Th. 2. S. 432. This view is by no means new; but it is discarded
by all judicious investigators, as mere mystical refinement. The following
reasons are especially decisive against it.[698]

[698] Compare, e. g. Carpzov. Appar. ad Antiq. p. 153: Ut eos taceam, qui
mysticam commenti rationem, nutritionem capillamenti symbolum instituunt
nutritionis interioris, quo Abarbanel in h. 1. et Gregorius, L. II. Moral. c.
26, tendit.

1. The proofs which are brought for the position, that according to oriental and
especially Israelitish views, the growth of the hair is a symbol for the
thriving condition of man, are very weak. The one derived from Lev. Leviticus 25
is the only one which is worth the trouble of a closer examination. It is there
said of the sabbatical year in Leviticus 25:5 : “The grain which groweth of its
own accord thou shalt not reap, and the grapes of thy undressed vines
(nazarites) thou shall not gather, a year of rest is it for the land,” after
that it had been said before in Leviticus 25:4, “Thy field thou shalt not sow,
and thy vineyard thou shalt not prune.” Then in Leviticus 25:11, concerning the
year of jubilee: “You shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself,
neither gather its nazarites.”[699] It is not entirely certain, that there is a
special reference in these passages to the leaving of the hair to grow in the
case of the Nazarites.

[699] Besides the establishment of the law in chap. 6, these passages also, in
which before the giving of the law concerning the Nazarites allusion is made to
them, show that the lawgiver found it as an existing institution. The general
idea of separation, which lies at the basis of the whole institution of the
Nazarites, might here also apply. As the Nazarites were separated from the
world, so was the vine from the use of man in the sabbatical year and the year
of jubilee. But if we suppose a reference to the unshorn hair of the Nazarites,
which the ‘not gathering’ and ‘not pruning’ in Leviticus 25:4 and Leviticus 25:5
favor, yet at any rate the point of comparison is only with respect to the
separation. That the unpruned vine is not better, but worse, is decidedly
against the opinion of Bähr. It shoots out in wood, and an injury is done to its
true growth.[700] This is decisive against the opinion that the growth of the
hair among the Israelites is a symbol of prosperity, namely, that it belongs to
propriety among the Israelites to go with shorn hair, whereas according to this
view, long hair must have been considered an ornament as among most nations of
antiquity.[701] [700] John 15:2.

[701] Carpzov. p. 153: Communis inter priscos Judaeos mos ita tulit ut tonsis
incederent capillis, secus ac Graeci veteres Romani, Galli aut Germani, qui
comati erant. Compare, in reference to the consideration in which long hair was
held among these nations, the collections by Lampe in the Miscell. Groning. t.
4. p. 209 seq.

2. The fundamental idea in the institution of the Nazarite is that of separation
from the world, with its enjoyments, which oppose holiness, and its corrupting
influences. This negative point of separation, involves the positive one of
sanctification, the separate person is at the same time holy to the Lord—since
the world stands in opposition to the Lord, every renunciation of it is at the
same time a union with the Lord, and the separation is here made directly for
the sake of the Lord. That the idea of separation lies at the foundation, the
name, by which the significance of the institution must be expressed,
indicates.[702]נָזִיר (nazyr) means the separate one. Equally in favor of this
idea is Numbers 6:2 : “The vow of a Nazarite is for a separating to the Lord.”
This fundamental idea of the institution must be traceable in all of its
separate points. That especially the command to leave the hair unshorn rests
upon it, we have even the express explanation of the lawgiver. It is said in
Numbers 6:5 : “All the days of the vow of his separation, no razor shall come
upon his head: until the days be fulfilled in the which he separateth himself
unto the Lord he shall be holy; he shall let the hair of his head grow.” The
separation is here given as a reason for allowing the hair to grow. Even the
hair of the Nazarite is in Numbers 6:9 and Numbers 6:18 named נָזִיר,
separation, but with the accompanying idea of designation. Now according to the
view of Bähr, the idea of separation is entirely lost. The negative idea which,
as has been alleged, must form the foundation upon which the positive is
supported, falls entirely away. Thereby then this element of the institution of
the Nazarite will be entirely separated from both the others in which the
negative idea, as can be demonstrated and is allowed, prevails.

[702] Carpzov. p. 151: Haud dubiaנָזִירest aנָזַר, separavit, abstraxit,
continuit se a re aliqua et propterea segregatum, separatum notat.—Satis omnino
praesidio huic interpretationi est ex sede hujus instituti primaria,Numbers 6:2,
ubi votam Nasaraei dicitur ad separandum se domino. At the same time with the
view of Bähr, that which Winer, (after the authority of Lampe,) has proposed,
falls to the ground:[703] “The head of the Nazarite with its natural ornament
was regarded as specially devoted, and the touching of it with a razor is
consequently a profanation of that which belongs to Jehovah.” The negative idea,
according to this view, is also robbed of its just right. Long hair cannot,
according to the notions of the Israelites, be considered as “a natural
ornament.”

[703] In dem Reallexicon, II. 1. S. 165. The proof for the interpretation of the
rite claimed by us, is given in the confutation of other views. We believe that
long hair is a symbol of separation from the world. It belongs, as we have
already seen, to the Israelitish ideas of propriety to go with shorn head,[704]
and he who left his hair to grow, furnished by this act a practical confession
that he renounced the world, and abandoned all intercourse with men. That also,
on other occasions, those who considered themselves as separated from men
suffered their hair to grow, is shown by Deuteronomy 21:12, where, concerning
the captive which an Israelite determined to marry, it is said: “And thou shalt
bring her into thine house, and she shall shear her head and pare her nails.” By
shearing her head and paring her nails she enters again into human society.[705]

[704] Geier, De Hebr. Luctu, p. 203, correctly says: Israelitarum populum
comatum haudquaquam fuisse vel indc colligi potest, quod comam alere proprium
esset Nazaraeorum, adeo ut hi ipsi ab aliis popularibus facile internoscerentur
ex coma.

[705] This passage shows very distinctly with what justice Bähr asserts, S. 437:
It was the Israelitish custom in mourning, not to allow the hair to be long, but
to cut it. The cutting of it must indeed be different from shaving, calvitium
facere. Only the latter was the appropriate condition in mourning. Comp. Geier,
De Hebr. Luctu. c. 8. § 6 and 7.

If the significance of leaving the hair unshorn is determined, the Egyptian
reference in this rite lies on the surface. Indeed it must appear remarkable
that the Israelites agree with the Egyptians almost against the whole of the
rest of the world in considering short hair as belonging to social
propriety.[706] Indeed, this agreement is explained most easily by the
long-continued residence of the Israelites in Egypt. But it is a point of more
importance, that among the Egyptians not less than among the Israelites, the
temporary withdrawing from the world, the going out of society, was symbolized
by leaving the hair to grow. We see this from Genesis 41:14, according to which
the captives in Egypt left their hair unshorn, and also from Herodotus 2. 36:
“The priests of the gods wear, in other lands, long hair; but in Egypt they cut
it off; among other nations it is the custom to shear the beard when a relative
dies. But when any of their friends die, the Egyptians leave the hair which was
before cut, to grow, both on the head and chin.”

[706] Compare remarks uponGenesis 41:14, where we have shown that cutting the
hair was considered as a distinguishing peculiarity of the Egyptians.

Whilst the proof that the leaving of the hair to grow, among the Nazarites, was
a sign of separation, shows on the one hand that the rite stood in an external
relation to Egyptian customs, it serves, on the other hand, for confuting the
hypothesis of Spencer, concerning the heathenish origin of the whole rite. The
cases in which the heathen devoted the hair of the head and the beard to their
divinities, appears from this point of view as entirely different. Our inquiries
concerning the Egyptian references in the religious institutions of the books of
Moses, are finished. It only remains now, in a last chapter, to collect together
those things for which, until now, no suitable place has been found.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 18: 16.     CHAPTER VII: MISCELLANEOUS PASSAGES.
========================================================================

Chapter VII: Miscellaneous Passages. The Genealogical Table in Genesis 10.

It has often been asserted that the genealogical table in Genesis 10 cannot be
from Moses; since so extended a knowledge of nations lies far beyond the
geographical horizon of the Mosaic age. This hypothesis must now be considered
as exploded. The new discoveries and investigations in Egypt have shown that
they maintained even from the most ancient times, a vigorous commerce with other
nations, and sometimes with very distant nations. The proofs are found in
Creuzer,[707]Heeren,[708] in my Contributions,[709] and in Wilkinson.[710] This
last author, among other things, remarks, that the strongest proof for the
commerce of the Egyptians with distant nations of Asia, is furnished by the
materials out of which many of the articles in use in civil and domestic life,
found in the tombs of Thebes which belong to the 18th or 19th dynasty, are made
in Egypt; for example, the vessels of wood, which are commonly made of foreign
wood, and not seldom of the mahogany of India.

[707] Symb. Th I. S. 319 ff.

[708] S. 275, 321 ff., 376 ff. 571 ff.

[709] Th. 2, S. 451 ff.

[710] Vol. I. p. 164. But not merely in general do the investigations in
Egyptian antiquities favor the belief that Moses was the author of the account
in this tenth chapter of Genesis. On the Egyptian monuments, those especially
which represent the conquests of the ancient Pharaohs over foreign nations,
(conquests which certainly were oftener achieved in imagination than in reality,
as indeed the almost regular recurrence of these representations under nearly
all the ancient Pharaohs shows, so that nothing can be more erroneous than the
present popular way of relying upon them, without inquiry, as sources of
historical truth,) not a few names have been found which correspond with those
contained in the chapter before us. We will here speak only of those where the
agreement is perfectly certain. It must be allowed that far more still could be
effected if our knowledge of hieroglyphics were not so very imperfect.[711]
[711] Wilkinson, Vol. I. 377.

Among the sons of Japheth, in Genesis 10:2, Meshech and Tiras are mentioned in
close connection. Among the Asiatic nations which are represented on the
monuments as engaged in war with the Egyptians, the Toersha also appear,
according to Wilkinson.[712] They are shown, indeed, among the nations who are
said to have been conquered by the third Remeses. Their identity with Tiras is
the less doubtful, since another nation, the Mashoash, is named along with them.
These last Wilkinson[713] designates as “another Asiatic nation who resemble the
former in their general features and the shape of their beards.” The agreement
between Meshech and Tiras on the one side, and Mashoash and Toersha on the
other, is the less exposed to suspicion since Wilkinson did not think to place
both in connection, as indeed in general, the present attempt at comparing the
names of the people represented on the monuments with those found in Genesis 10,
is the first.

[712] Wilkinson, Vol. I. 378.

[713] Wilk., Vol I. p. 379.

Among the sons of Japheth, in the same verse, Javan, the Ionians or Greeks, is
mentioned. According to Rosellini,[714] the Uoinim, the Ionians are found among
others, in a symbolic painting, representing king Menephthah I. the 12th king of
the 18th Dynasty as in the sight of Amon-re he slays one individual of each of
the conquered nations. These[715] same people were also mentioned on the
monuments which belong to Thothmes V.[716] [714] Vol. III. 1. p. 425.

[715] Vol. III. 1. p. 426.

[716]P. 210.

Among the sons of Gomer, the son of Japhet, consequently as a Japhetic nation,
Riphat is mentioned in Genesis 10:3, probably identical with the Pouont or Fount
who are represented on the monuments as engaged in war with the Egyptians, as
early as the time of Amun-m-gori II, which the more recent chronologers place at
about the year 1680 B. C.[717] [717] See Wilk. 1. 374.]

Among the sons of Ham in Genesis 10:6, Cush is first mentioned. The Cush
according to Wilkinson,[718] are represented among the African people who are
conquered by the monarchs of the eighteenth or nineteenth dynasty. “These,” (the
Cush,) he remarks, “were long at war with the Egyptians; and a part of their
country which was reduced at a very remote period by the arms of the Pharaohs,
was obliged to pay an annual tribute to the conquerors.”[719] According to
Rosellini[720] the victory of king Horus over the same people is represented on
a monument at Selsilis. According to the same author,p. 420.]]6 they appear in
the painting already referred to, among the nations conquered by Menephthah I.
Eleven separate Cushite tribes are there mentioned in agreement with Genesis
10:7, according to which Cush is not the name of a separate tribe but of several
tribes belonging to one general family.

[718] Vol. I. p 387.

[719] See also Champollion Briefe S. 105.

[720] III. 1. p 277 seq. As the second son of Ham, the second Hamitish head of a
family, Mizraim is mentioned. This name was, as the dual form signifies,
originally the name of the land. The division of the land into the upper and
lower regions to which it refers, appears on the monuments even in the most
ancient times. In proof of this see Wilkinson[721] and Champollion’s
Letters,[722] where an inscription is quoted: “I give thee the upper and the
lower Egypt in order that you may rule over them as king.”

[721] Vol. II. p. 73.

[722] S. 140.

According to Genesis 10:13, Mizraim was the progenitor among other nations, of
the Lehabim and Naphtuhim. It serves for a confirmation of the statement that
the Lybians (the Lehabim) are an offshoot from the Egyptians, that they even to
the time of the Ptolemies were considered a part of the Egyptians.
Champollion[723] affirms that he found Niphaiat (=Naphtuchim) on the monuments
as a name of Lybian nations.

[723] S. 124. The Canaanites and Amorites (called Asmaori) are represented on
the Egyptian monuments with Lemanon[724] (the people of Lebanon) and
Ascalon.[725] The land Canana is specifically named among the inscriptions upon
a representation of the triumph of Menephtha I., together with the region of
Nahareina or Mesopotamia and Singara or Sinear.[726] In reference to a
representation of a campaign of Osirei, the father of Remeses the Great,
Wilkinson[727] says: “The country of Lemanon is shown by the artist to have been
mountainous, inaccessible to chariots, and abounding in lofty trees, which the
affrighted mountaineers are engaged in felling in order to impede the advance of
the invading army. The Egyptian monarch, having taken by assault the fortified
towns on the frontier, advances with the light infantry in pursuit of the
fugitives who had escaped and taken refuge in the woods, and sending a herald to
offer terms on condition of their surrender, the chiefs are induced to trust to
his clemency and return to their allegiance, as are those of Canana, whose
strong-holds yield in like manner to the arms of the conqueror.” It is readily
seen from these representations with what justice an argument against the
Pentateuch has been derived from the knowledge of Canaan which its author
exhibits.

[724]Wilkinson, Vol. I. p. 62, says: “The common custom of substituting m for 6
in Coptic, and the representation of a mountainous and woody country in which
the chariots could not pass, convince me that this is intended for mount
Lebanon.”

[725]Wilk. Vol. I. 385.

[726] See Ros. III. 1. p. 437, also upon Canana, p. 341.

[727] Vol. 1. p. 387.

“The sons of Shem,” it is said in Genesis 10:22, “are Elam and Asshur and
Arphaxad and Lud and Aram.”

It is in the highest degree probable that Asshur appears on the monuments under
the name Shan”. That the Shari, who especially under the reign of Osirei and his
son Remeses the Great, are represented as engaged in war with the Egyptians, are
the Assyrians, is indicated not only by the name but by the similarity of dress
between them and the captives of Tirhaka.[728] [728] Wilk. I. p. 375-6. Compare
also Champollion, S. 105. The Ludim act a conspicuous part on the Egyptian
monuments. In a representation of a triumph of Menephthah I. five foreign
nations are found, the Romenen, the Scios, the people Ots from the land of Omar,
the Tohen and the Sceto. All of these with the exception of Ots are represented
in the inscriptions as belonging to the land of Ludim. And of the whole
expedition it is repeatedly said, that it was directed against the people of the
land of Ludim, which is in accordance with the book of Genesis, in which
likewise, Lud is not represented as a single tribe but as an entire nation.
Since in these same inscriptions the land of Canana is also named and the region
of Nahareina and Singara, just as in Genesis Lud is closely connected with Aram,
Rosellini[729] argues that the land Ludim lay in the neighborhood of Canaan and
Mesopotamia, and he asserts that it must be sought in the western part of Asia.

[729] III. 1. p. 437-8.

Abraham and Sarah in Egypt, Genesis 12. In Genesis 12:14-15 it is said: “And it
came to pass, that when Abraham came into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman
that she was very fair. The princes of Pharaoh also saw her and commended her
before Pharaoh, and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house.”

Sarah must therefore have been unveiled.[730] The monuments show that according
to Egyptian customs she could only so appear in public. “We find from the
monuments,” says Taylor,[731] “that the Egyptian women in the reign of the
Pharaohs, exposed their faces and were permitted to enjoy as much liberty as the
ladies of modern Europe. But this custom was changed after the conquest of the
country by the Persians.”

[730]A passage from Gliddon’s Ancient Egypt, p. 48, is worthy of insertion here,
not only from the light which it throws upon this section and the one contained
on pp. 25-6, but also from its general interest in relation to the state of
society among the ancient Egyptians: “There was no Salic law in Egypt; and in a
country where females were admitted to a full participation in all legitimate
privileges with man—where women were queens in their own right—royal priestesses
from their birth; and otherwise treated as females are, in all civilized and
Christian countries, there were none of those social restrictions that elsewhere
enslaved the minds, or constrained the persons of the gentler sex. We have the
most positive and incontrovertible evidence, in a series of monuments coeval
with Egyptian events for 2500 years, to prove that the female sex in Egypt was
honoured, civilized, educated, and as free as among ourselves; and this is the
most unanswerable proof of the high civilization of that ancient people. This is
the strongest point of distinction between the Egyptian social system of ancient
times, and that of any other eastern nation. Even among the Hebrews, the Jewish
female was never placed in relation to man, in the same high position as her
more happy and privileged sister enjoyed in Egypt.”

[731]P. 4. The recognition which Sarah’s beauty finds is more easily explained,
if we take into the account that the Egyptian women, although not so dark as the
Nubians and Ethiopians, were yet of a browner tinge than the Asiatics. On the
monuments the women of high rank, in compliment to them were commonly
represented with fairer complexions than their attendants.[732]

[732] Ibid. p. 4.The passage to which Hengstenberg refers is as follows: An
aggravation of Abraham’s alarm arose from the complexion of his wife: “Thou art
a fair woman.” Though the Egyptian ladies were not so dark as the Nubians and
Ethiopians, they were of a browner tinge than the Syrians and Arabians: we also
find on the monuments, that ladies of high rank are usually represented in
lighter tints than their attendants, though we occasionally find some as dark as
that which we have copied; but there is ample evidence that a fair complexion
was doomed a high recommendation in the ago of the Pharaohs. This circumstance,
so fully confirmed by the monuments, is recorded in no history but the book of
Genesis, and it is a remarkable confirmation of the veracity of the Pentateuch.
That Pharaoh is immediately thereupon ready to take Sarah into his harem appears
not to be consistent with Herodotus B. 2, c. 92, according to which each
Egyptian had only one wife.[733] But that Herodotus speaks only of the common
practice among them and that polygamy was there allowed by law, is shown by what
Diodorus[734] says: “Among the Egyptians the priests marry only one woman, but
the rest of the men, each one as many as he chooses.” That polygamy was
infrequent among the Egyptians is evident from numerous representations of
domestic life on the monuments.[735] But with their wives the noble Egyptians
had also other inmates of the harem which were sometimes merely servants and
sometimes also concubines; “most of them appear to have been foreigners, either
taken in war or brought to Egypt to be sold as slaves.”[736] Of this class are
the women at Medeenet Haboo, attending upon Remeses, and not the wives of the
monarch. The concubines were members of the family and were in rank next to the
wives and children of their lord. Without doubt Sarah was intended for such a
station. Among the gifts which Abraham received from Pharaoh, male and female
slaves are mentioned, in Genesis 12:16. “Domestic slavery,” says Taylor,[737]
“seems to have been established in Egypt from the earliest ages, and we find
from the monuments that the mistress of a mansion was very rigid in enforcing
her authority over the female domestics. We see these unfortunate beings
trembling and cringing before their superiors, beaten with rods by the
overseers, and sometimes threatened with a formidable whip wielded by the lady
of the mansion herself. Hagar was one of the female slaves obtained by Abraham
at this time.” See upon slavery among the Egyptians, Wilkinson:[738] “The
Ethiopians were obliged to supply the Egyptians with slaves, which the Egyptians
sometimes exacted even from the conquered countries of Asia.”

[733] This is clearly the meaning of the passage, and Bähr is entirely wrong in
making it mean the opposite.

[734] 1. 80.

[735] Wilk. Vol. II. p. 62.

[736] Ibid. 64.

[737] p. 7.

[738] Vol. 1. p. 388.

Genesis 13:10. In Genesis 13:10, the author says the plain of the Jordan was
everywhere well watered, “as the garden of the Lord (Paradise), like the land of
Egypt.” Less wonderful is it here that the author understands the natural
condition of Egypt than that just this same land presents itself to him directly
as a means of comparison.[739]

[739] There is no ancient nation in which horticulture received anything like
the same attention that it did in Egypt; the garden seems to have been an object
of greater care than the house; in almost every representation of a banquet, we
find that flowers were regarded as the chief ornaments, and fruits as the
principal delicacies. While the operations of the farmer were confined to the
brief seasons of sowing and harvest, the cares of the horticulturist appear to
have been incessant. From the total disregard of perspective in the paintings
and bas-reliefs, the representations of Egyptian gardens are very confused, and
at first suggest very few ideas of beauty. A closer examination proves that
their pleasure grounds were laid out in what used to be called the Dutch style,
which was so fashionable in England about a century ago. The flower-beds are
square and formal; the raised terraces run in straight lines; arbours of
trellis-work occur at definite intervals, covered with vines and other creepers,
which it is difficult to identify. Some of tho ponds are stored with water-fowl,
and others with fish. Vegetables are depicted in great variety and abundance. It
is indeed impossible to look at any representation of an Egyptian garden,
without feeling some sympathy for the complaints and murmurings of the
Israelites in the desert. “The children of Israel also wept again and said, Who
shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt
freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the
garlick; but now our soul is dried away, there is nothing at all besides this
manna before our eyes.” (Numbers 11:4-6.) This attachment to gardens is
frequently made the subject of poetical allusions in the Song of Solomon, which,
though it has a much more high and holy signification, as both Jewish and
Christian commentators unanimously agree, yet was primarily designed as an
epithalamium on his marriage with a beautiful Egyptian princess, the daughter of
the reigning Pharaoh. “A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut
up, a fountain sealed. Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant
fruits; camphire, with spikenard; spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon,
with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices; a
fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon.”
(Cantic. 4:12-15.)

Exodus 20:25. In Exodus 20:25 it is said: “And if thou wilt make me an altar of
stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone; for if thou lift up thy tool upon
it thou hast polluted it.” The preparation of hewn stone is represented in a
tomb at Thebes—some workmen stand there smoothing the surfaces of a stone with
chisels of different forms; others are examining to see whether it is perfectly
square. The great skill of the Egyptians, in the preparation of hewn stone, is
one of the principal causes of the durability of the Egyptian monuments.[740]
[740] Rosellini II. 2. p. 159. The Festival of the Golden Calf, etc. Exodus 32
andLeviticus 17:7. A succession of allusions to Egypt are found in the 32nd
chapter of Exodus. That the representation of Jehovah under the image of the
golden calf is only explainable on the supposition of Egyptian influence, and
that it stands in connection with the worship of Apis,[741] has been fully
discussed in the Contributions.[742] In the same work, it was also shown that
striking analogy is found in the descriptions of the feasts of the gods among
the Egyptians, for the manner in which the festival of the golden calf was
celebrated by the Israelites, as exhibited in the following passages: Exodus
32:6—”And the people sat down to eat and to drink and rose up to play.”Exodus
32:17 : “And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said
unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.” Exodus 32:18, where Moses
says: “The noise of song I hear.” And in Exodus 32:19 : “And he saw the calf and
the dancing.” The most ancient popular rites of the Egyptians were, according to
Creuzer,[743] of the nature of orgies, and the fundamental character of their
religion was Bacchanalian. Sensual songs were sung, with the accompaniment of
noisy instruments. Of the yearly journey to Bubastis, Herodotus[744] says:
“Throughout the whole journey, some of the women strike the cymbal, whilst men
play the flute, and the rest of the women and men sing and clap with their
hands; and when they, in their journey, come near a town, they bring the boat
near the shore and conduct as follows: some of the women do as I have already
described, some jeer at the women of the town, with loud voices, and some
dance,” while others commit other unseemly acts. Especially is it said
concerning the feast of Apis[745] “But when Cambyses came to Memphis, Apis (whom
the Greeks call Epaphos) was shown to the Egyptians, and as he appeared, the
Egyptians forthwith put on their most costly garments and exulted.”[746]

[741] Wilkinson connects it with the worship of the Mnevis of Heliopolis. After
speaking of the worship of the sacred animals in general, he says: “The Hebrew
legislator felt the necessity of preventing the Jews from falling into this, the
most gross practice of which idolatry was guilty. The worship of the golden
calf, a representation of the Mnevis of Heliopolis, was a proof how their minds
had become imbued with the superstitions they had beheld in Egypt, which the
mixed ’multitude had practiced there.’” Second Series, Vol. II. p. 96-7. But it
is of little consequence which is referred to. The allusion is sufficiently
plain in either case.

[742]Th. 2. S. 155 ff.

[743] Symbol. I. S. 448, 9.

[744] B. 2. c. 60.

[745] B. 3. c. 27.

[746] See also upon the sacred dance among the Egyptians, Wilk. II. p. 340.

Just as here, in a manner throughout inimitable by one of later times, the
circumstances, tendencies and feelings of the people who had grown up under
Egyptian influences, are exhibited with incontrovertible truth. So are they,
also, in the passage Leviticus 17:7, already explained at large in a former
work.[747] It is there said, in reference to the rebellious Israelites: “They
shall no longer offer their sacrifices to he-goats (שְׂאִירִם), after which they
have lusted.” The opposition which exists between a he-goat and a god, was
removed in the Egyptian religion and in it only. “The he-goat, and also Pan,
were, in the language of Egypt, named Mendes,” says Herodotus,[748] and almost
all the Greeks follow him. This identity of names between the god and the
he-goat is explained by the pantheistic element in the Egyptian conception of
the world. The he-goat was not barely a symbol of Mendes, for whom the Greeks,
looking away from the other great differences, because of the form of the
he-goat and his wantonness, substituted Pan, but the physical presentation, the
incarnation of this god, and was therefore considered holy and as worthy of
divine honor. The service of the he-goat, as a deity, was very anciently
performed in Egypt, and he was the participant of very high honor among
them,[749] that we must necessarily expect the idolatrous inclination of the
Israelites awakened after a short slumber, to be also directed specially to this
deity.

[747]In den Beilragen, Th 2. S. 118 ff.

[748] B. 2. c. 46.

[749]Compare Creuzer, Th. III. S. 325. so

We turn back to Exodus 32 Aaron demands, according to Exodus 32:2, of the
children of Israel, the golden rings which are in the ears of their wives, their
sons, and their daughters, in order to fashion from them the calf. “The golden
ornaments found in Egypt,” says Wilkinson,[750] consist of rings, bracelets,
armlets, necklaces, ear-rings and numerous trinkets belonging to the toilet;
many of these are of the times of Osirtasen I. and Thothmes III., contemporaries
of Joseph and Moses.” The same author[751] shows that ear-rings were commonly
worn in Egypt. Rings of gold were so common in Egypt, according to
Rosellini,[752] that they took, to a certain extent, the place of coin, and many
times were used in trade.

[750] Wilk., Vol. III. p. 225.

[751] Vol. III. p. 371-1.

[752] Vol. II. p. 280.

According to Exodus 32:20, Moses took the calf that they made and burned it and
beat it,[753] (namely, the elements of the calf, externally gold and internally
wood, which had escaped the fire) until it was fine as powder. In Deuteronomy
9:21, Moses says of the same transaction: “And burned it with fire, and beat it,
grinding it thoroughly, until it was as fine as dust.” Wilkinson[754] says,
certain persons were employed in the towns of Egypt, to pound various
substances, in large stone mortars, with heavy metal pestles. When the substance
was well pounded, it was taken out and passed through a sieve, and the larger
particles were again returned to the mortar, until the whole was sufficiently
fine.

[753] In Wilkinson, Vol. III. p. 220-1, it is said: “A strong evidence of the
skill of the Egyptians in working metals, and of the early advancement they made
in this art, is derived from their success in the management of different
alloys; which, as M. Goguet observes, is further argued from the casting of the
golden calf, and still more from Moses being able to burn the metal and reduce
it to powder; a secret which ho could only have learned in Egypt. It is said in
Exodus that ‘ Moses took the calf which they had made, and burned it in the fire
and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of
Israel drink of it;’ an operation which, according to the Frenchsavant,’ is
known by all who work in metals to be very difficult.’ ‘Commentators’ heads,’ he
adds, ‘have been much perplexed to explain how Moses burnt and reduced the gold
to powder. Many have offered vain and improbable conjectures, but an experienced
chemist has removed every difficulty upon the subject, and has suggested this
simple process. In the place of tartaric acid, which we employ, the Hebrew
legislator used natron, which is common in the east. What follows, respecting
his making the Israelites drink this powder, proves that he was perfectly
acquainted with the whole effect of the operation. He wished to increase the
punishment of their disobedience, and nothing could have been more suitable; for
gold reduced, and made into a draught, in the manner I have mentioned, has a
most disagreeable taste.’”

[754] Vol. III. p. 181 and Drawing. In Exodus 32:32, Moses asks of God: “And now
if thou wilt, forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy
book which thou hast written.” These words imply the customary employment of
lists and rolls, which have existed in scarcely any other land so generally as
they did in Egypt. The monuments often exhibit this frequency. Thus there is
represented in a tomb at Gurnah a levying of Egyptian soldiers. The men,
conducted by their commander, go before a scribe in order to be enrolled.[755]
[755] Rosellini, H. 3. p. 218. Compare also Herod. B. 2. c. 177.

Prohibition of Marriage Between Near Relatives. Leviticus 18. The law concerning
unlawful intercourse, in Leviticus 18, in which marriages between near relatives
occupies the first place, is in Leviticus 18:3 accompanied by the words: “After
the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do.” Truly,
among no people of antiquity was the moral feeling, with reference to marriage
among relatives, so blunted, as among the Egyptians. The marriage with the
sister, so strongly forbidden by Moses, was considered among them as
unconditionally allowable. Diodorus[756] says, “It is, contrary to the common
custom, lawful among the Egyptians to marry a sister, since such a union, in the
case of Isis, was so fortunate in its consequences.” Pausanias[757] says of
Philadelphus, who married his sister by birth: “He in this did that which was by
no means lawful among the Macedonians, but entirely in accordance with the law
of the Egyptians, over whom he ruled.” Philo[758] relates of the Egyptian
lawgiver, that he gave permission to all to marry their sisters, those who are
sisters by birth, not less than step-sisters, those of like age and older, not
less than the younger. “By the sculptures in Upper and Lower Egypt,” remarks
Wilkinson,[759] “it is fully authenticated, that this law was in force in the
earliest times.”

[756] B. I. c. 27.

[757] Att. 1. 7.

[758] De Special Legg. p. 780.

[759] Vol. II. p. 63.

Defilement with Animals.Leviticus 18:23,Exodus 22:18, etc. The prohibition of
defilement with animals is in the Pentateuch so often repeated and so rigorously
enforced, (see Leviticus 18:23 : Neither shall thou lie with any beast to defile
thyself therewith, neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down
thereto; it is confusion, תֶּבֶל),[760] that we are involuntarily driven to the
supposition, that the author has a very special reason for enjoining the
prohibition of this so unnatural and infrequent a crime, and that he takes into
account an immorality which ruled among those by whom the Israelites had been
previously surrounded, which was introduced among them through a
pseudo-religious motive, and had acquired an influence which it could never have
exerted without that sanction. We should the more expect to find such a vile
practice among the Egyptians, the further erroneous views of the position of
animals in the whole creation and the changing of the proper relation of animate
to human beings, was carried. That this enormity really existed among the
Egyptians,” Herodotus[761] shows: “In this same province (the Mendesian) the
following prodigy happened in my time: ἐγένετο δʼ ἐν τῷ νομῷ τούτῳ
ἐμεῦ τοῦτο τὸ τέρας· γυναικὶ τράγος ἐμίσγετο ἀναφανδόν. τοῦτο ἐς
ἐπίδεξιν ἀνθρώπων ἀπίκετο.”[762] That the occurrence which Herodotus here
mentions was not a single one, is evident from the declarations of other
writers.[763] [760] See alsoExodus 22:18,Leviticus 20:15,Deuteronomy 27:21.

[761] 2. 46.

[762] Bähr says upon this passage: Mendetis in urbe hircos mulieribus se miscere
Pindarus quoque cecinerat (v. Strabo, 17. p. 1154), ex quo alii repetierunt
laudati a Schneidero ad Pindari fragm. p. 122. ed. Heyn. t. 3. et Bocharto,
Hieroz. 2, 53. Idem facinus de Thuiitis alii retulerunt, v. Clem. Al. p. 27. Ac
turpissimi hujus amoris causam a religione repetendam esse, qua ductae mulieres
Pani s. hirco, ejus symbolo, se permiserint, in dubium vocari nequit. The
passage of Pindar quoted reads:Μένδηται παρὰκρηνὸν θαλάασσας ἔσχατον
Νείλου κέρας αἰγιβάται ὅθι τράγοι γυναιξὶμίσγονται.

[763]See the preceding note. The reference of the Mosaic law on this subject to
the irregularities connected with the worship of the goat among the Egyptians,
appears the more certain, since this worship of the goat among the Israelites,
according to the passage in Leviticus 17:7, already discussed, was during the
passage through the desert yet very prevalent.

We are still more confirmed in our belief of an Egyptian reference in this
prohibition of defilement with animals, from its being comprised in the number
of those which in Leviticus 18:3 are introduced by the words: “After the doings
of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do.”

Leviticus 24:10-12. The account of “the son of the Israelitish woman whose
father was an Egyptian,” in Leviticus 24:10-12, transfers us, and in a manner
peculiar and inimitable by a later writer, into the very heart of things as they
must have existed at the time of the departure of the people from Egypt. If any
narrative carries the proof of its authenticity along with it, this does. The
name of the mother and her father are given, and the name of the tribe of the
latter is also stated. That the father is an Egyptian and the mother an
Israelite, is entirely in accordance with the common relation of the Egyptians
to the Israelites, while the opposite case, an Israelitish father and an
Egyptian mother, is hardly supposable. It is entirely natural that in the son of
an Egyptian father, the heathenish blood should show itself, so that he curses
the God of Israel.

Numbers 11:4. In Numbers 11:4 it is said: “The mixed multitude that was with
them fell a lusting, and the children of Israel wept again, and said, who shall
give us flesh to eat?” Numbers 11:5 : “We remember the fish, which we did eat in
Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the grass (helbeh), and the
onions, and the garlic.” This passage is especially important, in respect to the
connection of the Pentateuch with Egypt. All the things named in it certainly
existed in Egypt in great abundance, and most of them were distinguished for
their excellence; and among those means of subsistence, which ancient Egypt
produced in great abundance, which were generally in favor with the whole
people, and specially with them, there is no one omitted. Among those named, one
is found, the grass (helbeh), which is so entirely peculiar to Egypt, that
interpreters down to the latest times have erred in reference to it, since they
fail to derive the explanation from accurate knowledge of Egypt. These
peculiarities can appear natural to us, in this connection, only on the
supposition that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, but on that hypothesis
they are entirely in accordance with the circumstances of the case.

We begin with that product, the naming of which is especially worthy of notice,
and suited to convince us of the author’s knowledge of Egypt. The Grass
(helbeh),חָצִיר. The current opinion, as it is found, for example, in
Rosenmueller, upon this passage, and in Gesenius’ Thesaurus, same word, is this:
חָצִיר means here, leek, which on account of its grasslike appearance takes this
name. But this opinion is entirely without foundation. Appeal cannot be made to
the authority of the ancient translators.[764] For who can give us security,
that they, supposing that all herbage used for fodder is excluded, and looking
around among the productions which serve men for food, for one that at least
furnishes an external similarity to grass, have not merely guessed at the one
they have taken?

[764] Septuagint,πράσα, Vulgate, porri. But the correct view is arrived at
through a different counterargument. The חָצִיר has etymologically the meaning
of food for cattle—it is originally not grass, but pasturage, fodder,[765] and
so also according to common use.[766] The first criterion for the correctness of
the interpretation is, therefore, that the article of food which is identified
with חָצִיר must be appropriately food for beasts, so that man goes, as it were,
to the same table with them. Now if such an article of food could by no means be
found, we should be warranted in giving up this criterion, which is entirely
wanting in the leek.

[765] See Gesenius, loc. cit.

[766] E.g.1 Kings 18:5,Job 40:15, and other passages. Compare Gesenius. But
among the wonders of the natural history of Egypt, it is mentioned by travellers
that the common people there eat with special relish a kind of grass similar to
clover. The impression which the sight of this makes on those who have travelled
much, is very graphically described by Mayr:[767] “A great heap of clover was
thrown before the beasts, and a smaller pile of clover-like fodder was placed
before the master of the house and his companions. The quadrupeds and the bipeds
ate with equal greediness, and the pile of the latter was all gone before the
former had finished theirs—this plant is very similar to clover, except that it
has more pointed leaves and whitish blossoms. Enormous quantities are eaten by
the inhabitants, and it is not unpalatable. I was afterwards, when hungry, in a
situation to lay myself down upon the fields where it grows, and graze with
pleasure.”

[767] Reise nach Aegypten u. s. w. S. 226.

Raffeneau Delile gives a more scientific description:[768] “The fenu-grec
(trigonella foenuni Graecum, Linn.) is an annual plant, known in Egypt under the
name of Helbeh; it very much resembles clover. The people of the country find
the young fresh shoots, before blossoming, a very delicious food.”

[768] Hist. des Plantes cultiv. en Egypte, § 2: Du Trèfle d’Égypte et du
Fenu-grec, cultivés comme fourages, in the Description, t. 19, p. 59 seq. But
the most particular and the best account is found in Sonnini.[769] From him we
make a somewhat copious extract, since it clearly shows us how the emigrating
Egyptians and the Israelites could among other things also look back longingly
to the grass of Egypt: “Although this helbeh of the Egyptians is a nourishing
food for the numerous beasts who cover the plains of the Delta; although horses,
oxen and the buffaloes eat it with equal relish, it appears not to be destined
especially for the sustenance of animals, since the barsim furnishes an aliment
better even and more abundant. But that which will appear very extraordinary is,
that in this singularly fertile country, the Egyptians themselves eat the
fenu-grec so much that it can properly be called the food of men. In the month
of November, they cry, “Green helbeh for sale,” in the streets of the towns. It
is tied up in large bunches, which the inhabitants eagerly purchase at a low
price, and which they eat with an incredible greediness, without any species of
seasoning. They pretend that this singular diet is an excellent stomachic, a
specific against worms and dysentery; in fine, a preservative against a great
number of maladies. Finally, the Egyptians regard this plant as endowed with so
many good qualities that it is, in their estimation, a true panacea. Prosper
Alpinus has entered into long details upon its use in medicine. After so many
excellent properties, real or supposed, it is not astonishing that the Egyptians
hold the fern-grec in so great estimation that according to one of their
proverbs: Fortunate are the feet which tread the earth on which grows the
helbeh.”

[769] Voyage dans la haute et basse Egypte, Tom. I. p. 379 seq.

Besides those named, von Schubert[770] may be compared. He says: “The kinds of
clover whose young shoots and leaves we saw eaten in many ways by the Egyptians,
were the helbeh (trig. foenum, Gr.) and the gilban (Lathyrus sativus).”

[770] Reise, Th. II. S. 107. The Fish. The fact that fish were placed first in
the narrative,[771] and also the phrase: “which we ate in Egypt freely,”
indicate that they were very numerous. And it is so well known that almost
incredible numbers exist in Egypt, that we need not quote all the separate
proofs of the fact. We only refer to
Oedmann,[772]Mayr,[773]Bähr,[774]Taylor,[775] and Wilkinson.[776] But it should,
perhaps, be particularly mentioned that according to Herodotus a part of the
inhabitants of the marshes of the Delta, shepherds, who probably were not of
Egyptian origin, and were hated[777] by the cultivators of the soil, lived
entirely on fish.[778]

[771] We make the following extract from its interest, in connection with
several other passages in the Pentateuch and Isaiah, as well as the one under
discussion: “Fishing is one of the employments most frequently depicted on the
monuments. It is combined with fowling by amateur sportsmen, and even with the
chase of the crocodile and the hippopotamus; but is also pursued as a regular
trade by an entire caste. It is recorded as a fearful aggravation of the first
plague of Egypt, that ‘the fish that was in the river died,’ (Exodus 7:21). The
first great complaints of the Israelites, when they murmured against Moses in
the desert, was,’ We remember the fish that we did eat in Egypt freely,’
(Numbers 11:5.) And this abundance of fish was still further increased by the
ponds, sluices, and artificial lakes which were constructed for the propagation
of the finny tribe. Hence Isaiah, in denouncing divine vengeance against the
Egyptians, dwells particularly on the ruin which would fall upon those who
derived their subsistence from the animals and plants of the Nile: ‘And the
waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up. And
they shall turn the rivers far away; and the brooks of defence shall be emptied
and dried up: the reeds and flags shall wither. The paper reeds by the brooks,
by the mouth of the brooks, and every thing sown by the brooks, shall wither, be
driven away, and be no more. The fishers also shall mourn, and all they that
cast angle into the brooks shall lament, and they that spread nets upon the
waters shall languish. Moreover, they that work in fine flax, and they that
weave net works, shall be confounded. And they shall be broken in the purposes
thereof, all that make sluices and ponds for fish,’ (Isaiah 19:5-10). Although
the Nile, and the artificial lakes, were constantly swept with nets, we are
unable to discover any proof of the Egyptians having ever fished in the open
sea; and indeed there is reason to believe that the fishes of the sea were, from
religious motives, regarded with abhorrence. The supply has not failed in modern
times; the right of fishery on the canals and lakes is annually farmed out by
the government to certain individuals, who pay very large sums for the
privilege. ‘The small village of Agalteh at Thebes,’ saysMr Wilkinson, ‘pays
annually 1500 piastres (about £21.) to government for the fish of its canal.’M.
Michaud, in his delightful Letters, gives an account of the fisheries on the
lake Menzaleh, too interesting to be omitted. ‘The waters of Menzaleh abound in
fish; the Arabs say that the varieties of fish in the lake exceed the number of
days in the year. Although this may be deemed an exaggeration, it is certain
that -whatever be the number of their species, the fishes of this Jake multiply
infinitely.’ —’On the monuments the fishermen appear as a class inferior to the
agricultural population, and we know historically that they formed one of the
lowest castes. This was also the case in Palestine, and hence when Christ chose
two of this class to become apostles, he announces to them that they were for
the future to be engaged in a more honourable occupation. ‘Now as he walked by
the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the
sea, for they were fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I
will make you to become fishers of men. And straightway they forsook their nets
and followed him.’“—Taylor, p. 62, seq.

[772] Verm. Samml. I. S. 136. Radzivil says there: “We saw, to-day, about a
hundred fishermen lying in the turbid waters of the Nile, and catching fish with
their hands. Some of them came up with three fish—one in each hand and one in
the mouth. The fish were an ell long, and of different kinds.”

[773] Mayr, S. 188.

[774] Zu Herodotus, I. S. 658.

[775] P. 62 seq.

[776] Vol. III. p. 63.

[777] See Bähr, l. c. S. 687; Heeren, S. 150.

[778] Minutoli stands entirely alone in his assertion, S. 406: “In fish the Nile
is poor, as well in respect to numbers as in variety of species, of which there
are not many.” Were this correct, we should despair of ever finding truth in
history. But we will not trouble ourselves about that in anticipation. The
Cucumber.

Upon the cucumber, also, we need not delay long. It is known that they exist in
Egypt, and of peculiar excellence. They are large, of fine flavor, and very much
eaten.[779]

[779] Compare the passage from Prosper Alpinus which has already been quoted by
Rosenmueller; Forskal, Flora, p. 169; Description, t. 19. p. 109; De Sacy upon
Abdollatiph, p. 125; and Abdollatiph himself, p. 34; Hartmann, Aeg. S. 180. The
Melons,אֲבַטִּיחִים The melons are of very great importance to Egypt. The
following passages from Sonnini,[780] best show how they could become objects of
general longing in the desert, where “The souls of the people were dry,” Numbers
11:6. But the species of fruit which, by its pulp and its refreshing water, best
serves to moderate the internal heat which the climate generates, is the pastek
or water-melon (cucurbita citrullus).[781] The markets are filled with them, and
they sell at so very small a price, that the poor as well as the rich can
refresh themselves with their watery and sweet juice. They are a healthful
nourishment, and useful in the climate where the heat makes the blood boil, and
gives sharpness to the humors.”[782] [780] Th. 3. S. 101.

[781] Aegyptiis battich Forsk. p. 75.

[782] See also Sonnini, p. 109; Abdollatiph, p. 35; De Sacy, p. 127 and 8.

Onions. The onions of Egypt are also far renowned and much praised. They are
often represented in the sculptures.[783] According to Arvieux,[784] they are
sweet and large, and taste better than those of Smyrna. Hasselquist[785]
protests that there are in the whole world none better. Herodotus shows that
they were, in antiquity, frequently an article of diet of the people, and a
common food of those who labored upon the pyramids.[786] In what estimation they
are now held, we see from Sonnini:[787] “This species of vegetable is yet
extraordinarily common in this country: it is the aliment of the more ordinary
of the people, and almost the only food of the lowest class. Onions, cooked or
raw, are sold in the streets and markets for almost nothing. These onions have
not the tartness of those of Europe; they are sweet; they sting not the mouth
unpleasantly; and they do not produce weeping in those who cut them.”

[783]Wilk. II. p. 373.

[784] Hartmann, S. 180.

[785] P. 562.

[786]B. a. c. 125.

[787] Tom. II. S. 66, 67. The Garlic.

Finally, the garlic, just as here, is spoken of by Herodotus, in connection with
the onion, as a principal article of food, especially of the poorest
classes.[788]Pliny[789] also speaks of the two in connection. Dioscorides
describes the garlic among the plants of Egypt; and Rosellini[790] thinks he has
discovered it upon a painting in Beni Hassan. It is not now produced in
Egypt;[791] just as also other plants very abundant in Egypt in former times,
especially the papyrus-plant, are now either entirely or almost entirely
extinct.[792]

[788] “Among the lower orders, vegetables constituted a very great part of their
ordinary food, and they gladly availed themselves of the variety and abundance
of esculent roots growing spontaneously, in the lands irrigated by the rising
Nile, as soon as its waters had subsided; some of which were eaten in a crude
state, and others roasted in the ashes, boiled or stewed: their chief aliment,
and that of their children, consisting of milk and cheese, roots, liguminous,
cucurbitaceous, and other plants, and ordinary fruits of the
country.Herodotusdescribes the food of the workmen who built the Pyramids, to
have been the ‘raphanus or figl, onions, and garlic;’ yet if these were among
the number they used, and perhaps the sole provisions supplied at the government
expense, we are not to suppose they were limited to them: and it is probable
that lentils, of which it is inferred from Strabo they had an abundance on this
occasion, may be reckoned as part, or even the chief article, of their
food.”—Wilk. II. 370.

[789] Hist Nat. 19.6: allium cepasque inter deos in Jurejurando habent Aegyptii.

[790] Vol. II. 1. S. 383.

[791] Sonnini, p. 68.

[792] What Michand says, tom. 8. p. 56, concerning the manner of living among
the Fellahs in the Delta may be compared with this whole passage: “Rien n’ égale
la sobriete de ce peuple: il soutient sa vie avec quelques herbes, des
concombres, des oignons, un mauvais pain de dourah ou lentilles.

Numbers 17:2.

According to Numbers 17:2, Moses takes from each one of the twelve princes of
the tribes of Israel a rod and writes their name thereon. The name of each
person, Wilkinson,[793] remarks was frequently written on his stick, instances
of which I have seen in those found at Thebes.”

[793] Vol. III. p. 388.

Deuteronomy 6:9;Deuteronomy 11:20. The passages, Deut. Deuteronomy 6:9 : “And
thou shall write them (the divine commands) upon the posts of thy house, and on
thy gates,” and Deuteronomy 11:20, imply that the custom of giving to houses
inscriptions, was quite common among the people with whom the Israelites
dwelt.[794] According to the monuments, the name of the owner of a house among
the Egyptians was not unfrequently written upon the lintels of the doors.[795]
“Besides the owner’s name,” says Wilkinson,[796] “they sometimes wrote a lucky
sentence over the entrance of the house for a favorable omen, and the lintels
and imposts of the doors in the royal mansions, were often covered with
hieroglyphics, containing the ovals and titles of the monarch.”

[794] See Beitr. Th. 2. S. 459.

[795] See engraving in Wilk. Vol. II. 102.

[796] Vol. II. p. 123-4, and concerning the inscriptions on the gates of the
gardens, p. 144. The Diseases ofEgyptSevere.Deuteronomy 7:15;Deuteronomy
28:27;Deuteronomy 28:35;Deuteronomy 28:60,Exodus 15:26. In Deuteronomy 7:15 it
is said: “And the Lord will remove from thee all sickness, and will put none of
the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee.” A similar expression
is also found in Exodus 15:26, “If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of
the Lord thy God, and will do that which is right in his sight, and will give
ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these
diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians, for I the Lord am
He who healeth thee.” In Deuteronomy 28:60 it is said: “And the Lord will bring
again upon thee all the diseases of Egypt of which thou wast afraid, and they
shall cleave to thee.” In Deuteronomy 28:27 and Deuteronomy 28:35 of the same
chapter, erring Israel is threatened with the infliction of a sickness
peculiarly Egyptian concerning which we have already in another connection made
investigation.

All of these scattered passages agree in this, that Egypt in reference to
diseases, is a very peculiar land, and is visited by them in a very special
degree. The accounts of all those who have made the diseases of Egypt an object
of particular attention, show that the author is right in this. Wagner[797] in
his Natural History of man, calls Egypt “a great focus of the diseases in
universal history.” De Chabrol in his “enquiry concerning the customs of the
modern inhabitants of Egypt,” of the most important diseases, says: “With an
almost equable temperature and with an always serene sky, Egypt can have only a
small number of diseases, but they are for the most part terrible.”[798] [797]
Th. II. S. 270.

[798] Description 7. p. 43 seq. § 8. The same author then speaks of single
maladies, the plague, which is almost never wanting in Cairo, and particularly
in Alexandria, the dysentery of which he says: “This disease causes great
destruction among them and especially attacks the children, which it carries off
in a frightful manner;” the diseases of the eyes with which one at least out of
five individuals is afflicted, the small-pox which in Egypt is frightful and
rages far worse than in Europe, etc. In the “observations upon several diseases
which attacked the soldiers of the French army,” four seasons of the year are
made[799] with reference to healthfulness. The first comprises the time of the
inundation, “I name,” says the author, “this first season of the year which
continues about three months, the damp season; it may be considered as the
winter of the country. The west wind which then blows, increases the dampness of
the atmosphere which at evening and especially in the morning is full of mist.
The consequence is a coolness which is uncomfortable and detrimental to animal
secretions. In this season of the year diseases of the eyes, the hospital fever,
diarrhoea and catarrhal pains prevail.”[800] “The third season of the year says
the same author further, “which I will give the name of the sick season, since
it is destructive to the health of the inhabitants and especially of strangers,
begins about the first of March and continues generally until about the end of
May. The south wind takes the place of the east wind which had prevailed during
the earlier part of the year. These south winds are first light but they
increase gradually—they afterwards decrease in the same way—and indeed to such a
degree that during a period of about 50 days, from which they have taken the
name chamsin, they are very violent and hot, and hence would become
insupportable, if they blew without cessation. At this season of the year wounds
heal with difficulty, and are easily seized with mortification. Sicknesses of
all kinds take an unusual character and require the greatest carefulness on the
part of the physician, and in general all living beings are more or less
affected.”[801] [799] In the Descr. t. 13, p. 216 seq.

[800] Of this same time says Abdollatiph, p. 4. De Sacy: During this season of
the year unhealthful evaporations prevail; the air is bad— putrid diseases,
caused by bilious and phlegmy humors, rage among the inhabitants.

[801] Compare also upon the diseases of Egypt Prosper Alpinus, De Medicina Aeg.
ed. Friedreich, t. 1. p. 95 seq.: De morbis Aegyptiis peculiaribus eorumque
causis; and Hartmann, AegypL S. 54 ff, where blindness is designated as the most
to be feared of any of them. Volney found among 100 persons who met him,
oftentimes twenty entirely blind, ten blind with one eye and twenty others whose
eyes were either red or festered or diseased in some other way.

Cultivation of the Land inEgyptand Palestine,Deuteronomy 11:10-11. In
Deuteronomy 11:10 and Deuteronomy 11:11 it is said: “For the land whither thou
goest in to possess it, is not as the land of Egypt, from whence ye came out,
where thou sowedst thy seed, and wateredst it with thy foot as a garden of
herbs: but the land whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys,
and drinketh water of the rain of heaven.” These verses furnish occasion for the
following remarks:

1. The supposition that Egypt is without rain lies at the foundation of this
passage. Against the correctness of this implication, the accounts of modern
travellers cannot be adduced in argument, according to whom, especially in Lower
Egypt it certainly sometimes rains; for these rains are yet proportionally so
seldom and, what is the principal thing, to which reference is made in this
immediate connection, they have so little influence in fertilizing the earth,
that the classical writers are accustomed to speak of Egypt as if it never
rained there. Herodotus[802] says perfectly plainly, “it rains not in their
land.”[803] Collections concerning rain in Egypt are given by
Faber,[804]Nordmeier[805] and Hartmann.[806] [802] B. 2. c. 14.

[803] Compare Diod. 1. 41. Plinius Panegyr. c. 30: Aegyptus alendis augendisque
seminibus ita gloriata est, ut nihil imbribus coeloque deberet. Mela names Aeg.
expers imbrium. Lnoilins in Seneca, Nat. Quaest IV. 2: Nemo aratorum aspicit
coelum, and Tibullua: nec pluvio supplicat herba Jovi.

[804] Zu den Beob. a. d. Orient, B. 1. S. 4 ff. 2. S 347 ff.

[805] In the Calend. Aeg. p. 11 and 20.

[806] S. 197.

2. The author in designating Canaan in opposition to Egypt, as a land of
mountains and valleys, places in the flatness of country of Egypt the cause of
absence of rain, and that he in this way proves himself acquainted with the
natural condition of Egypt no man can deny.[807]

[807] Vossius upon Mela L. 1. c. 9. § 1. ed. Tzschuck. III. 1. p. 247. says:
Quaerit vero causum Aristobulus apud Strabonem 1. 15. (p. 476 s. 692.) quare,
cum in Syene imbres cadant, intermedia tantum loca pluvia omnino careant.
Quaestio haec ibi proponitur, sed non solvitur. Ratio tamen est manifesta, quia
nempe illa Aegypti pars, ubi nullae cadunt pluviae, plana, humilis, sicca,
arenosa ac calida est admodum, utpote torridae zonae vicina. Vapores itaque, qui
a terra arida egrediuntur, cum rari admodum et tenues sint, aut noctu decidunt
in rorem mutati, aut toti ab aestu consumuntur, priusquam in pluviam abeant. At
vero tractus Syeniticus, quia excelsus et montosus est, nessessario pluviis
abundat. Ubi enim montes, ibi nivium et aquarum lapsus perpetui.

3. It appears at first view remarkable that the author represents it as a
superiority of Canaan over Egypt, that it is subject to rain, and is not watered
by a river. If we compare what Herodotus[808] says of the inhabitants of the
region below Memphis, the thing will assume quite another phasis. “For now
indeed these people obtain the fruits of their land with far less trouble and
labor than other people, even than the other Egyptians. They need not trouble
themselves to turn up furrows with the plough, nor to dig with the hoe, nor with
any other kind of labor, which men bestow upon the earth, but the river comes of
its own accord upon their land and waters it, and having done this, it leaves it
again, and then each one sows his ground.” The great facility of cultivation in
Egypt is also asserted by Rosellini.[809] But if we examine the affair more
minutely, it appears that the author is perfectly right, and that the error, if
it is altogether an error, falls rather on the side of Herodotus[810] and those
who take him as authority.

[808] B. 2. c. 14.

[809] II. 1. p. 288.

[810] Bähr upon Herodotus says: Herodoteis similia proferunt Diod. 1. 36.,
Columella II. 25., Athenaeus V. 8. Sed recentioris aetatis scriptores si audias,
vix ulla invenitur terra, quae quo fructus ferat magis hominum opera indigeat
quam Aegyptus. Quae cum ita sint, nisi erroris patrem historiae incusare velis,
ejus verba non ad omnem Aegyptum erunt referenda, sed ad unam modo alteramve
ejus partem, eximia agrorum fertilitate insignem.

First, it is to be remarked, that Herodotus particularly designates only those
labors as unnecessary for the Egyptians, which in other lands precede
seed-sowing. But in Egypt, the burdensome labor, the watering, begins not until
after the seed is sown, and this circumstance is made very particularly
prominent in our passage. That irrigation is really a very laborious employment,
is confirmed by many witnesses. “Forskäl,” says Oedmann,[811] “has shown that
the cultivation of the land in Egypt requires more toil than one would imagine.
The watering must be often repeated, and for that purpose the land is
intersected by canals. These canals must be cleared out yearly, and sustained by
hedges, etc. planted on their banks. And in Shaw,[812] it can also be seen with
what indescribable pains the water must be conducted through the numerous little
channels, to furnish sustenance for the productions of the land, to say nothing
of the various machines which are drawn by buffaloes, and are used for carrying
up the water to the gardens, after the canals and cisterns are dry.” The
difficulty of cultivation in Egypt Girard[813] also asserts. A single ‘Feddan
Doorah’ sometimes requires, according to him, a hundred days’ works of watering.
Prokesch[814] says: “The watering is indispensably necessary, and must be
performed at stated intervals. It is the custom to water the fields in winter
once in fourteen days, in the spring, if the dew falls sufficiently, once in
twelve days, but in the summer once in eight days.” The same author
describes[815] the various machines for irrigation. Finally, Michaud[816] says:
“The labor of tillage is not that which most occupies the agricultural
population here; for the land is easy to cultivate. The great difficulty is to
water the fields; even the most robust of the Fellahs are employed to raise the
water and perform the irrigation.”

[811] Verm. Beitr. 1. S. 126.

[812] Page 172.

[813] In the Descr. t. 17. p. 56.

[814] In den Erinnerung. Th. 2. S. 135.

[815] S. 137.

[816] Correspondence from the East, Vol. VIII. p. 54.

Further, it must not be overlooked, that Herodotus speaks only of a single
region of Egypt, of that which enjoys the blessings of the Nile in the fullest
measure. He explicitly contrasts the inhabitants of the region below Memphis
with the rest of the Egyptians. But our passage has particularly in view that
part of Egypt which was inhabited by the Israelites. This lay upon the borders
of the desert, and the blessings of the Nile could be appropriated to them only
by means of the greatest exertions.

Finally, it is to be considered that the Canaan of which the author speaks is in
a manner an ideal land. It was never what it might have been, since the bond of
allegiance, in consequence of which God had promised to give the land its rain
in its season, was always far from being perfectly complied with.

4. That our passage is spoken in opposition to the boasting of the Egyptians,
who looked down with proud pity upon all other lands, since these had no Nile,
is probable from a comparison of Herodotus, 2. 13, which has a striking relation
to our passage: “For when they heard that in all the country of the Greeks the
land is watered by rain, and not by rivers, as in Egypt, they said, ‘the Greeks,
disappointed in their brightest hopes, will sometimes suffer severe famine;’
which means, if God at some time shall not send rain, but drought, then famine
will press upon them, for they can obtain water only from God.” This phrase,
‘only from God,’ which seems so terrible to the Egyptians, is here represented
as a mark of favor to the people, which has God for its friend, and to which the
eyes of the Lord its God are directed from the beginning until the end of the
year, Deuteronomy 11:12.

5. The words: “Where thou sowedst thy seed and wateredst it with thy foot as a
garden of herbs,” shows at least that the author was acquainted with the manner
of irrigation in Egypt, and is most easily explained on the supposition that he
was acquainted with the manner of life among the Egyptians by personal
observation. At the first view, these words appear without doubt to have
reference to an Egyptian watering machine described by Philo,[817] with which
they carried the water from the Nile and its canals into the fields. This
machine, a wheel for raising water turned by the foot, is even now in use in
Egypt. Nevertheless, since the authority of Diodorus, for the newness of the
invention of this machine, scarcely sufficient of itself, (he mentions[818] that
it was invented by Archimedes,) is confirmed by the circumstance that this
machine is not represented in the sculptures,[819] whilst the machine, now most
common for irrigation, the shadûf, is found even on very ancient monuments,[820]
it is most natural to refer the words rather to the carrying of the water in
which the foot has the most to do.[821] This process we find also represented on
the Egyptian monuments.[822] Two men are there employed in watering a piece of
cultivated land. They bear upon their shoulders a yoke with straps at each end,
to which earthen vessels are fastened. They fill these with water from a
neighboring shadûf or from a pool, and carry it to the field. Another stands
there with a bundle of herbs which he appears to have just collected, by which
the phrase, ‘like an herb-garden,’ is very naturally suggested.

[817] De Confusione Ling. p. 255.

[818] I. 34. 5. 37.

[819] Wilk. II. p. 5.

[820] Wilk. I. p. 53. II. p. 4. Ros. II. 1. p. 385.

[821]This does not reach the point, since the passage in question does not seem
to refer to the mode of distributing, but of supplying the water. “Possibly,”
saysDr Robinson,1. 542, “in more ancient times the waterwheel may have been
smaller, and turned not by oxen, but by men pressing upon it with the foot, in
the same way that water is still often drawn from wells in Palestine, as we
afterwards saw.Niebuhrdescribes one such machine in Cairo, where it was
calledSâkieh tedûr bir rijl,‘a watering machine that turns by the foot,’ a view
of which he also subjoins.” The testimony in regard to the severity of the
labour of irrigation is uniform.Lane,Modern Egyptians, Vol. II. p. 24, speaking
of the raising of water by the Shadûf, says, “The operation is extremely
laborious.”Dr Robinson,p. 541, also remarks: “TheShadûfhas a toilsome
occupation. His instrument is exactly the well-sweep of New England in
miniature, supported by a cross-piece resting on two upright posts of wood or
mud. His bucket is of leather or wicker-work. Two of these instruments are
usually fixed side by side, and the men keep time at their work, raising the
water five or six feet. Where the banks are higher, two, three, and even four
couples are thus employed, one above another.”

[822]See the engraving from Beni Hassan in Wilk. II. p. 137, and the descrip. in
Ros. II. 1. p. 382-3.

6. The whole passage transfers us, in a manner inimitable by a modern writer, to
the time in which the Israelites were stationed midway between Egypt and Canaan,
yet full of the advantages which they had enjoyed in the former land, and in
want of a counterpoise to the longing desire for that which they had lost.

Deuteronomy 17:16.

Among the precepts for the king, Deut. Deuteronomy 17, it is said, Deuteronomy
17:16 : “Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to
return to Egypt, so that he may multiply horses; for the Lord hath said to you:
Ye shall not return back again that way.” It was shown in the
Contributions,[823] that the apprehension here spoken of, that the love of
horses in the king could finally cause the whole people to return to Egypt, was
entirely natural in Moses’ time, when a uniting of the band just now severed
appears not impossible, when the people from the most trivial cause uttered
their longing for Egypt, or even their determination to return,[824] but not
natural in the period of Solomon and the later kings. Indeed, such a thing could
not even have been in Joshua’s time, when the people had come to a full
consciousness of their national independence, and every thought on the
possibility of a reunion with the Egyptians was obliterated. In the same place
it was also remarked, that Egypt also appears in this passage as the only
country in which horses were raised, while indeed in the age of Solomon,
Palestine was to a certain extent distinguished for the same thing, so that it
could no longer be supposed that a king who wished to be the possessor of many
horses must go to Egypt.

[823]Th. 3. S. 247-8.

[824] SeeExodus 14:11.Numbers 11:5seq. 21:5, 7.

Kind Treatment of the Israelites by Individual Egyptians,Deuteronomy 23:8(7). In
the arrangement concerning those who are to be received into the congregation,
and those who are to be excluded, in Deuteronomy 23:8(Deuteronomy 23:7), it is
said: “Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his
land.” This passage implies that the Israelites received in some respects better
treatment from individuals of the Egyptians separately, than from the State, so
that the Israelites had cause for grateful regard to them in turn; since the
phrase, “For thou wast a stranger in his land,” is not a sufficient reason for
the command, “Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian,” unless it means that the
Egyptians performed the offices of hospitality to the Israelites, and earned for
themselves the claim of reciprocity. In accurate agreement with this, we read in
Exodus that God gave the Israelites, as they were departing, favor with the
Egyptians, turned their hearts to them in love and compassion, so that they gave
them rich presents for their journey. The agreement in so nice a circumstance
between passages so entirely disconnected, is worthy of notice, as also the
contents of each passage by itself. It is natural in a representation drawn from
acquaintance with the actual condition of things, that the contradictions which
real life always furnishes, should come in for a share; a mythic representation,
on the contrary, would certainly avoid this apparent contradiction, and would
here leave to the Egyptians only hatred and hostility and a correspondent
relation of the Israelites to them.

Deuteronomy 23:12-13. The precepts upon the not defiling of the camp, etc., in
Deuteronomy 23:12-13, reminds us of what Herodotus[825] says of the Egyptians:
“They εὐμαρέῃ χρέωνται in houses, and eat without, in the streets; for they
think that things which are unseemly, but necessary, must be done in secret; but
what is not unseemly, before all the world.”[826] If a custom of this kind had
been established among the Egyptians, from among whom the Israelites came, it
could not be violated by the Israelites without offending against decorum, and
the law comes in with its mandates to obviate this difficulty.

[825] B. 2. c. 35.

[826] Compare Bähr concerning the varying custom among the Greeks, S. 557.

Threshing with Oxen,Deuteronomy 25:4. In Deuteronomy 25:4 it is forbidden to
muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. Both ancient writers[827] and the
monuments show that oxen were used in Egypt for threshing.[828]Champollion[829]
says, in describing the subterranean apartment at Elkab (Elethya), which belongs
to the reign of Remeses Meiamun: “Among other things I have myself seen there
the treading out or the threshing of the sheafs of grain by oxen, and over the
engraving may be read, in almost entirely phonetic characters, the song which
the overseer sings while threshing:

[827] See Bähr upon Herodotus I. p. 508.

[828]Wilkinson,in his 2d Ser., Vol. I. p. 85, seq. gives engravings and a
description of this same scene at Elethya. His interpretation of the
hieroglyphics differs, however, a little from the one in the text, which is
taken from Gliddon: “Thresh for yourselves, (twice repeated,) O oxen, thresh for
yourselves, (twice,) measures for yourselves, measures for your masters.” The
same author also remarks, that similar songs may be found on the sculptured
tombs of Upper Egypt.—In this same connection, it is said, that wheat and barley
were abundantly cultivated in every part of Egypt, and that the former was
harvested in about five and the latter in about four months after sowing.
CompareExodus 9:31-32, from which it appears that the plague did not smite the
wheat, because it was later; and also p. 119 of this volume. InGenesis 41:22, we
read, “seven ears came up in one stalk.” Among the kinds of wheat in Egypt,
according toWilkinson,uthe seven-eared quality “may be mentioned “It was cropped
alittlebelow the ear;” hence the Israelites could obtain straw or stubble for
their brick, from the fields, when it was not furnished by their task-masters.

[829]Briefe, S.

“Tread ye out for yourselves, Tread ye out for yourselves,

O oxen!

Tread ye out for yourselves, Tread ye out for yourselves, the straw; For men,
who are your masters, the grain.” Of this same representation at Elethya,
Rosellini[830] says: “They make a great heap of ears in the midst of the
threshing-floor, and cause them to be trodden out by six oxen, which are kept in
constant motion by a man who goes behind with a whip.” In regard to the
signification of the hieroglyphics, Rosellini agrees with Champollion.

[830] II. 1. p. 308.

Deuteronomy 28:56. In Deuteronomy 28:56, the “tender and delicate woman” is
mentioned, “who would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground
for delicateness and tenderness.” Here also we are reminded of the state of
things in Egypt. The luxury of the Egyptian women exceeded that of all other
nations.[831] [831] Taylor, p. 173, 4.

Deuteronomy 5:15;Deuteronomy 4:20;Deuteronomy 6:20seq. 7:8, etc. In numerous
passages of Deuteronomy, the Israelites are admonished to keep the law by
reminding them of their sad condition in Egypt, and the favor shown in bringing
them out—a motive which implies that the consciousness of this condition and
this favor was yet entirely fresh and lively. In Deuteronomy 5:15, after it had
been said that the rest of the Sabbath shall be granted to the servant, it is
added: “And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the
Lord thy God brought thee out thence.” In the same verse is the duty of keeping
the Sabbath holy, founded on the deliverance from Egypt. In Deuteronomy 24:18,
after the order not to pervert the right judgment of the stranger or the
fatherless, or take the widow’s garment in pledge, it is said: “But thou shalt
remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee
thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing.”[832] Similar references are
found indeed in the earlier books.[833] That they are especially numerous in
Deuteronomy, is explained from the preponderance of the admonitory element in
the book; from the fact that it, more than the remaining books, (which present
the law in its bare objectivity,) appeals to the heart of the Israelites, in
order to bring the law nearer to it, which was one principal design of the book.

[832] Compare chap. 4:20, 6:20 seq. 7:8, 15:15, 16:12, 24:22.

[833] SeeExodus 22:20,Leviticus 19:34.

We have reached the limit of our inquiry. V. Bohlen, in his Introduction to
Genesis,[834] supposes that the knowledge of Egypt which is found in the
Pentateuch, can be wholly explained from the intercourse between the Israelites
and the Egyptians in the age of Solomon. But those Egyptian references with
which he was acquainted, filled scarcely half a page,[835] and indeed in order
to explain these from later circumstances, he was obliged to labor by availing
himself of a number of “mistakes and inaccuracies” with reference to Egypt, to
bring counter-arguments for the later age of the narrator, and for his position
out of Egypt. We have proved that these pretended “mistakes and inaccuracies”
are just so many proofs of the ignorance of him who alleged them. We have also
shown that the Egyptian references of the Pentateuch are beyond comparison more
numerous and direct than was hitherto supposed.[836] The unprejudiced critic
henceforth will be obliged to recognize in the connection of the Pentateuch with
Egypt, one of the most powerful arguments for its credibility and for its
composition by Moses.

[834] S. 41.

[835] S. 54.

[836]InExodus 25:12, seq., among other directions with regard to the
construction of the ark, it is said, “And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for
it, and put them in the four corners thereof: and two rings shall be in the one
side of it, and two rings in the other side of it. And thou shalt make staves of
shittim-wood, and overlay them with gold. And thou shalt put the staves into the
rings by the sides of the ark, that the ark may be borne with them.” And it is
seen from1 Chronicles 15:2;1 Chronicles 15:15, that “the Levites bare the ark on
their shoulders.” The similarity between this construction of the ark and the
manner of moving it, and the procession of shrines among the Egyptians, is too
striking to be passed unnoticed. “One of the most important ceremonies,”
saysWilkinson,“was ‘the procession of shrines,’ which is mentioned in the
Rosetta Stone, and is frequently represented on the walls of the temples. The
shrines were of two kinds: the one a sort of canopy; the other an ark or sacred
boat, which may be termed the great shrine. This was carried with grand pomp by
the priests, a certain number being selected for that duty, who, supporting it
on their shoulders by means of long staves, passing through metal rings at the
side of the sledge on which it stood, brought it into the temple, where it was
placed upon a stand or table, in order that the prescribed ceremonies might be
performed before it. The stand was also carried in the procession by another set
of priests, following the shrine, by means of similar staves; a method usually
adopted for transporting large statues and sacred emblems, too heavy or too
important to be borne by one person.”


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/hengstenberg-e-w-egypt-and-the-books-of-moses/
========================================================================