“He drove away the director’s overseer, he took away the vail.

The enemy pressed on evilly to Ennun-dagalla.

The god was clothed with light before him,

He flashed like lightning, and shook the (holy) places.

The enemy feared, he hid himself.

There descended (?) also its chief man, and he spake to him a

command.

... the god was clothed with light,

(He flashed like lightning), and shook the (holy) places.

‘(Draw near unto?) Ennun-dagalla, remove his crowns!

(Enter into?) his temple, seize his hand!’

..., he did not fear, and he regarded not his life.

‘(He shall not approach?) Ennun-dagalla, he shall not remove his

crowns.’ ”

(Here follows another mutilated passage, describing how “the Elamite, the

wicked man,” proclaimed something to the lands, and how he dwelt and

stayed in Dû-maḫa.)

(At this point is the end of the obverse, and there is a considerable gap

before there are any further fairly complete passages.)

“When the guardian spoke peace (to the city)

The guardian-bulls of Ê-šarra, [the temple of the host of the

gods], departed.

The enemy, the Elamite, multiplied evils,

And Bêl allowed evil to be planned against Babylon.”

“When righteousness was absent (?), then was decided (?) also the

destruction

Of Ê-šarra, the temple of the host of the gods, the guardian-bulls

departed.

The enemy, the Elamite, took its goods—

Bêl, dwelling upon it, had displeasure.”

“When the magicians repeated their evil words (?),

Gullum(47) and the evil wind performed their evil (?).

Then their gods departed—they departed like a torrent.

Storm and evil wind went round in the heavens.

Anu, their creator, had displeasure.

He made pale their face, he made desolate his place,

He destroyed the barrier in the shrine of Ê-anna,

(He overthrew?) the temple, and the platform shook.”

“ .... he decreed destruction,

..... he had disfavour.

The people (?) of Bêl of Ê-zida barred (?) the road to Šumer.

Who is Kudurlaḫgu(mal), the doer of the evils?

He has gathered also the Umman-man(da against?) the people (?) of

Bêl—

He has laid in ruin . . . by their side.”

“When (the enclosure) of Ê-zida (was broken down?),

And Nebo was ruler of the host, there (came) down his (winged

bulls).

Down to Tiamtu he se(t his face).

Ibi-Tutu, whom the Sun-god (?) hastened within Tiamtu,

Entered Tiamtu, and founded a pseudo-capital.

The enclosure of Ê-zida, the everlasting temple, was caused to be

broken through.”

“(The enemy), the Elamite, caused his yoke of horses to be

directed, (and)

Set his face (to go) down to Borsippa.

He traversed also the road of darkness, the road to Mesech.

The tyrant (?) Elamite destroyed the palace (?),

He subdued the princes of ... with the sword,

He carried off the spoil of all the temples.

He took their goods, and carried them away to Elam.

.... ruler, he destroyed the ruler (?),

.......... filled also the land.”

(The remainder is wanting.)

Apparently this is a poetical reproduction of the tablets of which

translations have already been given. The enemy entered Babylon, according

to the nine lines of the earlier portion of the inscription which are

preserved, and spoiled and ravaged the place. The mention of the channel

(îku, irrigation-channel) suggests a comparison with the first of the two

historical fragments, where waters over Babylon and Ê-sagila are referred

to, and cause one to ask whether Durmaḫ-îlāni and Tudḫula were not the

lieutenants of Kudur-laḫgumal.

The description of the conditions under which the entry into Babylon was

effected, when the god (possibly Ennundagalla) was clothed with light,

flashed like lightning and shook the holy places, suggests that a severe

thunderstorm acted on the superstitious hopes of the Babylonians, and the

equally superstitious fears of their foes, so much so, that the Elamite

did not carry out his intention of carrying away the crowns of the statue

of the god. He seems, however, to have taken and retained possession of

the place, and to have continued to extend his operations.

The reverse apparently states why all these misfortunes came, and what

further happened. It was because they accepted a foreign ruler (he spoke

peace to the city, and thereby became its master); because there was

denial of righteousness or justice (righteousness was absent?); because

the magicians repeated evil words. Even in the temple of Anu at Erech (the

shrine called Ê-anna, “the temple of heaven,” or “of Anu”) the god of

heaven was displeased, and caused something very like an earthquake. Some,

however, were found who were willing to try to bar the passage of the

conqueror, who had gathered the Umman-manda (barbarian hordes), possibly

his followers and those of Tudḫula or Tidal, against the people (?) of Bêl

(the Babylonians), and laid everything in ruins.

When the enclosure of Ê-zida (the great temple-tower of Borsippa,

identified with the tower of Babel by modern scholars) was broken down,

Ibi-Tutu, apparently a Babylonian prince, fled to Tiamtu, the region of

the Persian Gulf, and there founded a temporary capital. The invader

thereupon seems to have proceeded to Borsippa, and to have taken the road

to Mesech—that is to say, to the north—where he continued his ravages.

That he intended to go so far as Mesech, however, is very unlikely, his

object being to subdue the princes of the immediate neighbourhood of

Babylon, and after collecting the spoil and goods of all the temples, he

carried them away with him to Elam.

Cyrus, when he entered Babylon, spoke peace to the city, and promised

peace to all the land. In later documents even than the time of Cyrus,

“the enemy, the Elamite,” is spoken of, and there is every probability

that the legend here recounted was popular with the Babylonians as long as

any national feeling was left, hence these incomplete remains which have

come down to us—due, perhaps, to some period when the old hostility was

aroused by some inroad from the mountains on the east, where the Elamites

held sway apparently to a comparatively late date.

Whether Êri-Eaku (or Eri-Aaku), Tudḫula, and Kudur-laḫgumal be Arioch,

Tidal and Chedorlaomer respectively, I leave to the reader to decide for

himself. The first of these will probably be regarded as sufficiently near

to be exceedingly probable. With regard to the two others, it may be noted

that Tidal was pronounced, in Hebrew, Tidghal, as the Greek Thargal (for

Thadgal, _d_ and _r_ being so much alike in Hebrew as to be easily

interchanged) shows, and Chedorlaomer was Chedorlaghomer, as the Greek

Chodollogomar likewise indicates. Doubt concerning the reading can only be

entertained with regard to this last name.(48)

Whatever may be thought about the interesting and remarkable inscriptions

of which an account has just been given, of one thing there can be no

doubt, and that is, that the Elamites and Babylonians were quite powerful

enough, at the time of Abraham, to make an expedition of the magnitude

described in Genesis xiv. Sargon of Agadé held sway over this district,

and he reigned, according to Nabonidus’s indications, more than 1500 years

earlier. His son, when he came to the throne, added Elam to his dominions

as well. That the position should, at a considerably later period, be

reversed, is easily conceivable, and it was to all appearance the Elamites

who held sway in a part of Babylonia, of which country many of the states

undoubtedly acknowledged Elamite overlordship, though with exceeding

unwillingness. One point of the undoubted history is noteworthy.

Kudur-mabuk, son of Simti-šilḫak, who ruled at Larsa, bears, like his

father, an Elamite name. His son, Êri-Aku, has an Akkadian name—perhaps,

as already suggested, from motives of policy, and likely enough from the

same motive, he may have Semitizised it later on, making it Arad-Sin.

Êri-Ekua (-Eaku) is likewise an Akkadian name, and must be a fanciful

variant of that of Êri-Aku or Arioch. His son, however, bears the Semitic

name of Durmaḫ-îlāni, “the bond with the gods.” This is apparently a case

of carrying the policy of conciliation a step farther, for by doing this

he not only bears a native name, but also claims to be the intermediary

with the gods of his country.

After the retreat of the conquering army of Elamites and Babylonians with

their booty, with Lot, Abraham’s nephew, as prisoner, and his goods as

part of the spoil, comes the interesting account of the way in which

Abraham rescued his relative and recovered his property, with a portion of

that belonging to the king of Sodom. On his return with the spoil,

Melchizedek king of Salem meets him, offering him bread and wine, and

blessing him as Abraham of El-Elyon, “the most high god.” Certain supposed

confirmatory statements in the correspondence of Abdi-ṭâba, ruler of

Jerusalem, which was found among the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, has been the

subject of much discussion, and it is apparently regarded as being of much

importance, though there are various opinions concerning it. The prince in

question, when writing to his suzerain, the reigning king of Egypt, makes

the remarkable statement that it was not his father nor his mother who had

set him in that place (_i.e._ Uru-salim or Jerusalem) as king, but “the

mighty king”—

“Behold, this land of Jerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave (it)

to me—the hand (arm(49)) of the mighty king gave it to me.”—(Tablet,

_Berlin_, 103.)

“Behold, I am not a prefect, I am an employé of the king my lord,—behold,

I am an officer of the king, and one who brings the tribute of the king.

Neither my father nor my mother, (but) the arm of the mighty king has set

me in the house of my father.”—(Tablet _B._ 104.)

“Behold, I, neither my father nor my mother set me in this place. The arm

of the mighty king caused me to enter into the house of my

father.”—(Tablet _B._ 102.)

As Abdi-ṭâba then goes on to emphasize his faithfulness to the king of

Egypt, apparently on account of his having been made ruler of Jerusalem by

him, these passages merely resolve themselves, to all appearance, into a

statement of the writer’s indebtedness to his royal master. It may be

disappointing, but to all appearance the “mighty king” is the king of

Egypt, and not the god of Uru-salim.

Nevertheless, the description of Melchizedek in Heb. vii. 3, “without

father, without mother,” makes it a quite legitimate question to ask: may

not Abdi-ṭâba, in what he said to his suzerain, have made some mental

reservation when writing what he did? Or is it not possible that, when

speaking about his independence of his father and his mother for the

position that he occupied, he was unconsciously making use of words

familiar to him, and recorded in some document of the archives of the

city? We have yet to learn the history of the preceding period—we know not

whether Abdi-ṭâba had really a right to the position which he occupied (he

seems to have been placed as ruler of Jerusalem by the foreign power to

which he refers), and until we get more information, there is no escape

from the necessity of regarding him, from his own letters, as being in a

different position from that which, in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis,

Melchizedek occupies.

In connection with the question as to what divinity was worshipped at

Jerusalem, the tablet known as _B._ 105 is of importance. Line 14 of the

letter in question reads: “The city of the land of Jerusalem, its name is

Bît-Ninip, the city of the king, is lost—(it is) a place of the men of

Kelti.” What was this “city of the king,” or “royal city”? The general

opinion at first was, that the place meant was Jerusalem itself, for that

must have been from the earliest times “a royal city” _par excellence_.

Winckler, however, translates “_A_ city of the land of Jerusalem,” which

certainly seems a reasonable rendering. Properly speaking, however, the

idiomatic Semitic Babylonian expression for “_a_ city” would be _išten

âlu_, “_one_ city.” Though Winckler’s rendering is a perfectly reasonable

one, therefore, the first translation is not excluded, and in any case

there remains the clear statement that a city of the territory of

Jerusalem—that is to say a city which owned the sway of her

kings—possessed, as its patron-deity, the god whom the Babylonians and

Assyrians called Ninip, and worshipped under many names. Among these may

be mentioned Madanunu, explained as “the proclaimed (?), the renowned, the

high”; En-banda, probably meaning “the distinguished lord,” a name which

he bore as “Ninip, he who takes the decision of the gods.” Another of his

names was Ḫalḫalla, “Ninip, protector of the decision, father of Bêl”;

and, more interesting still, he was called Me-maḫa (“supreme word”), as

“Ninip, guardian of the supreme commands.” The Assyrians worshipped him

both under the name of Ninip and Apil-Êšarra, “son of the house (temple)

of the host.” It is this deity whose name occurs in the Assyrian royal

names Tukulti-Ninip and Tukulti-âpil-Ê-šarra, or Tiglath-pileser.

On these points, as on many others, we must wait for more light from the

East.

In the matter of Sarai, Abraham’s wife, giving her handmaid Hagar to

Abraham as a second or inferior wife, because she had no children herself,

it is not improbable that we have a record of what was a common custom at

the time. On p. 174 ff. translations of Babylonian tablets are given,

which seem to have some analogies with what is stated in the Biblical

narrative. In these inscriptions, however, the woman of inferior position,

though she is expected to be the servant of the other, is raised, to all

appearance, into a higher position, and described as the sister of the

first wife, apparently by adoption, this supposition being based on the

statement that Iltani was daughter of Sin-âbu-šu, though both Iltani and

Taram-sagila were taken in marriage from Uttatum, their father. Apparently

there was to be no difference in the status of the children of either of

them, and it was apparently on account of the hope that Hagar’s son would

be as her own, that the patriarch’s wife acted as she did.

With regard to the contract at Machpelah, that is, as has already been

noticed more than once, evidently a legal document, or at least an

abstract of such a document, and bears some likeness to the ancient

contracts of Assyria and Babylonia, though the latter are generally

composed in much shorter form, and with different phraseology. The

descriptions of landed property given on pp. 167, 178 ff., and also such

sales of land as the following give material for comparing the document in

question—

“¼ of a gan, a field by the crossing, in the upper district of Tenu,

beside (the property of) Qaranu the son of the palace, and beside (the

property of) Ili-midi, its first end the road Aštaba(tum ?), its second

end the property of the enclosure Tenunam, Il-šu-banî has bought from

Nannara-manšum and Sin-banî, his brother, sons of Sin-âbû-šu, for its

complete price. He has paid the money, he has passed the barrier, his

transaction is complete—the silver, the price of their field, is complete,

they are content. They shall not say ‘We have not received the money’—they

have received it before the witnesses. At no future time shall

Nannara-manšum and Sin-banî make claim upon the field. They have invoked

the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Zabium (the king).

“Claim of his brothers and his sisters [this would be better ‘their

brothers and their sisters’], children of Sin-âbû-šu, Nannara-manšum and

Sin-banî shall answer for.

“Before Ili-’adiwa, son of Amurru-banî; before Nannara-itti, son of

Sin-naṣir; before Sin-rêmeni, son of Išmê-Sin; before Nannara-ki-aga (?),

son of Sin-idinnam; before Munawirum; before Sin-bêl-ili; before

Sin-ûblam; before Nannara-manšum; before Ubar-Ninip, the scribe, before

Sin-êribam.”

In the following text the nature of the trees on the ground sold is

specified—

“12 measures, a date-palm plantation, beside the plantation of Rîš-Šamaš,

priest of the Sun-god, son of the woman Sâla, its first end (the property

of) Girum, Aḫatāni, sun-devotee, daughter of Marum, has bought for its

price in silver from Rîš-Šamaš, son of Sâla. She has paid the money, (and)

is content—she has passed the barrier. The transaction is ended. At no

future time shall they make claim against each other. (They have invoked)

the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Ḫammurabi (Amraphel).

“Before Amri-ili-šu, son of Naram-Êa; before Yati-îlu, son of Abil-Sin;

before Ibi-Šamaš, before Êtil-šêp-Šamaš (?), sons of Buzia; before

Izi-zarê; before Êrib-Sin, son of Sârabi; before Manum, son of

Sin-idinnam; before Iṭur-âšdum, son of Ilu-ma-rabi (?); before Ili-âbû-Sin

(?); before Êrib-Sin, son of Su-...; before Šamaš-binî-pî-ia; before

Dimaḫum; before Rîš-Šamaš; before Ikunia, (son of?) ...-ninibu.”

A comparison of these inscriptions, which are types of hundreds of others

known to Assyriologists, with the transaction between Abraham and the

Hittite Ephron, shows noteworthy differences. The boundaries are usually

stated in the Babylonian documents with sufficiently great precision; but,

on the other hand, the nature of the land is generally not stated except

if it be actually under cultivation, and any trees growing on it are

apparently mentioned only on account of their commercial value—when, for

instance, they are fruit-bearing trees, as in the reference to the

date-palms in the second document here translated. In Babylonia, as in

Palestine, contracts and transactions of a legal nature often took place

in the open space by the gate of the city in or near which the contracting

parties lived, and where witnesses to the transaction could easily be

found among those who passed in and out, or who had business in the

neighbourhood. In the record contained in the 23rd chapter of Genesis, the

names of the witnesses are naturally not given, but it is expressly stated

that the contract was made “in the presence of the children of Heth,

before all that went in at the gate of his city.”

Salem.

One of the most interesting points revealed by the Tel-el-Amarna tablets,

is the fact that the name of Jerusalem occurs, and is not called simply

Salem (as in Gen. xiv. 18), but Uru-salim, the Aramaic (Syriac)

_Uri-shalem_, a form which confirms the translation given to it, namely,

“city of peace,” though the writing of the word in the Tel-el-Amarna

tablets suggests the suppression of the particle “of,” making “the city

Peace” simply, which would, perhaps, be to a certain extent a counterpart

to or an explanation of the form Salem, “Peace,” in Genesis.

There is no doubt that the name is an exceedingly interesting one. Prof.

Sayce has suggested that there was a god named Salem, or “Peace,” and that

the city was so called as being the abode of that deity. This, of course,

is by no means improbable, but in no place where the name occurs—neither

in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets nor in the historical inscriptions of

Sennacherib—has the element _salim_ (in Sennacherib’s texts _salimmu_) the

divine prefix before it. That the divine prefix should be omitted in the

inscriptions of Sennacherib is easily understood, as the name in question

would be a foreign one to the Assyrian scribes of his time. To the writers

of the letters from Jerusalem, however, it was a native name, and one

would certainly expect the name of the city, in such documents, to be

given fully at least once.

Nevertheless, that there was a god of peace among the Semites, is proved

by the name of the Assyrian god Šulmanu or Shalman, a component part of

the name Shalmaneser, the Assyrian Šulmanu-ašarid. It is noteworthy that

there were no less than four Assyrian kings of this name, and that it

means “the god Shalman is chief.” _Šulmanu_ or _Šalmanu nunu_, “Shalman

the fish,” also occurs, as the name of one of the gods of the city Tedi,

or, as Prof. Sayce reads it, Dimmen-Silim (better Temmena-silima), but

this latter reading would only be the correct one if the characters Tedi

are to be read as an Akkadian group.

It is therefore very doubtful whether the element _salim_ in the name of

Jerusalem be the name of a god, notwithstanding the love that the peoples

of the Semitic East naturally had for the blessings which the word

implies. It formed part, as in Arabic at the present day, of many a

greeting, and is one of the most noteworthy points of the Semitic

languages. A poetic composition, apparently of the time of the dynasty of

Babylon—probably contemporaneous with Abraham—seems to read as follows—

Mazzazam išu, It has the

resting-place,

Padanam išu— It has the roadway,

Bab êkalli šalim; The gate of the

palace is sound—

Šulmu parku šakin. Perfect (?)

soundness exists;

Martum šalmât The gall is sound,

Ubanum šalmât The peak is sound,

Ḫašû (?) u libbu (?) Entrails and heart

šalmu are sound—

Sinšerit tiranu. 12 (are) the

coverings (?).

Tertum immer izzim (If) the viscera (?)

of a healthy sheep

(?)

Šalmât Be sound,

Mimma la tanakkud. Naught shalt thou

fear.

The above probably represents the signs which the _extispices_ or

“entrails-inspectors” looked for when working out their forecasts. A

better translation than “peace” for _salim_ would therefore probably be

“safe and sound,” “intact,” or something similar (see the 13th edition of

Gesenius’s Lexicon, edited by Prof. F. Buhl, with the collaboration of

Socin and Zimmern, also Fried. Delitzsch, _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_),

but the old and more poetic expression “peace,” “to be at peace,” may be

held to sufficiently express the meaning.

With regard to the first element of the name Jerusalem, Uru-salim in

Assyrian, that is to all appearance the Sumero-Akkadian _uru_ (from an

older _guru_), “city,” in the dialect _eri_, from which the Hebrew _’ir_,

“city,” has to all appearance come. The vowel-change from _u_ to _e_ or

_i_ is shown in _tu_, dialectic _te_, “dove”; _uru_, dial. _eri_,

“servant”; _duga_, dial. _ṣiba_, “good,” etc. As is usual with two

nationalities dwelling at no great distance from each other, borrowings of

words took place between the Semites on the one hand and the

Sumero-Akkadians on the other, which have left traces on the vocabularies

of both.

CHAPTER VII. ISAAC, JACOB, AND JOSEPH.

Jacob, Yakub, and Yakub-ilu—Joseph, Yasup, and Yasup-ilu—Other

similar names—The Egyptian monuments and the Semites.

With the disappearance of Abraham from the scene of his earthly

wanderings, a prominent figure connecting Babylonia with Palestine

vanishes from history. His son Isaac and his grandson Jacob retain,

however, their connection with those of the family who resided at Haran,

taking their wives from among their relatives there—Isaac because his

father wished it, Jacob because the souls of his father and mother were

vexed on account of the daughters of Heth whom Esau, Jacob’s brother, had

married. In this primitive story of three generations of a primitive

family there is much to interest the student of ancient west Semitic

manners and customs—the love of Isaac for Esau, because Isaac loved the

savoury venison which the former provided for him; how Jacob, “the

supplanter,” obtained his brother’s birthright and the blessing which he

ought to have had; Laban’s covetousness and duplicity—all these things

furnish material for the student of manners and customs and of human

nature, but very little for the comparative archæologist who wishes to

find connections between Abraham’s descendants and the country which gave

their father (or their grandfather) birth. Nevertheless there are points

which deserve illustration.

To all appearance the manners and customs of the families of the

patriarchs had not changed since they came out of Babylonia. There is the

same pastoral life, the same dislike (and probably mistrust) of strangers

and foreigners, the same freedom on the part of the men, even the most

honoured among them, with regard to the marriage-tie, the same tendency to

add to this world’s goods, and to become great and mighty chiefs in the

land (would that Jacob had done this otherwise), as at first. The

Babylonian spirit of commerce and the desire for “supplanting” was well

developed in the father of the twelve tribes, and may be regarded as

adding, as far as it goes, to the confirmation of the theory (but the

question is more one of fact than of theory) that Abraham was of

Babylonian race.

Exceedingly interesting are all the names borne by the patriarchs, and the

reasons why they were given to them. Indeed, the punning references to

circumstances concerning their birth are similar in their character to

those of the patriarchs before the Flood. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy

that many of the names found in this part of the sacred narrative are not

by any means unique. Thus the name of Jacob occurs many times in the

tablets of the period of the first dynasty of Babylon under the forms of

_Yakubu_, _Yakubi_, etc., and there are also forms with the word _îlu_

attached—_Ya’kubi-îlu_, _Yakub-îlu_, etc. In like wise we find what is

apparently the same name as that of Joseph, namely, _Yašupum_ with its

longer form _Yašup-îlu_, types of many others, such as _Yakudum_,

_Yakunam_, etc., _Yabnik-îlu_, _Yagab-îlu_ son of _Yakub-îlu_, etc. As far

as I have at present been able to find out, however, none of the names of

this class, except _Yakub-îlu_ and _Yašup-îlu_, have as yet been

discovered in both forms (_i.e._ with and without the element _îlu_),

which may turn out to be of importance, or may be simply a remarkable

coincidence.

This, naturally, leads to the question: What are the meanings of these

names? According to Genesis, Jacob means supplanter, or, rather, “he has

supplanted,” and the further query then arises: What does the name mean

when _îlu_ is added to it? The meaning in this case ought to be “God has

supplanted,” which clearly will not fit.

The best explanation probably is, that the name of Jacob was never

Ya´kub-ilu, but Ya´kub simply, meaning, “he has supplanted,” and

referring, naturally, to the person who bore the name. As the name

“Supplanter” is not one which a man would be proud to bear, in all

probability it was seen that it would be taken for the usual abbreviation

for Ya´kub-îlu, with the probable meaning of “God hath restrained”

(another signification of the root ´aqab), and thus it may be that there

is no record of any one having reproached him on account of it, except the

members of his own family, who knew why it was given to him, and

recognized in his character as a man something which corresponded with the

name given to him because of what was said to have happened at his birth.

Notwithstanding the two etymologies of the name of Joseph which are given

(Gen. xxx. 23, 24), “He (God) hath taken away,” and “He (God) hath added,”

there is but little doubt that the latter rendering is the correct one,

agreeing, as it does, better with the root _yāsaph_, from which it is

derived, the other rendering, from the root _āsaph_, “to take away,” being

due to a kind of pun. (The former rendering is explained as being from the

Elohist narrative, the other from that of the Jehovist, but it seems not

at all improbable that a woman, even a Canaanitess of those primitive

ages, should have made a joke sometimes—they seem always to have been

given to making strange comparisons with regard to words, and even the

ancient Babylonians were not free from that failing, as at least one of

the bilingual tablets shows.) The meaning of the name Joseph is therefore

“He (God) hath added,” corresponding with that of the Yašup-îlu, “God hath

added,” of the tablets of the time of the dynasty of Babylon. The use of

_š_ for _s_ must be due to the fact that _Yašup-îlu_ was, for the

Babylonians, a foreign name, and that, in Assyro-Babylonian, _šin_ was

pronounced like _samech_ and _samech_ like _šin_, as a general rule.

Besides the names of the patriarchs Jacob and Joseph, the name Sar-îli,

“prince of God,” suggests a comparison with Israel, which is written

Sir´ilâa, “Israelites,” in the time of Shalmaneser II. The meaning

attributed to this name would seem to be somewhat strained, as it would

signify rather “God hath striven,” than “he hath striven with God.” That

word-play exists also here, and that the name was a changed form of

Sar-îli, “prince of God,” is possible, and is at least justified as a

suggestion by the form recorded by Shalmaneser II. already referred to.

The name of his brother Esau may possibly exist in the Babylonian Esê,

found on a tablet dated in the reign of Samsu-iluna. Laban does not occur,

except as the name of a god in a list of deities worshipped in the city of

Aššur. With regard to Bethuel, one cannot help thinking that it must be

the same as the place-name Bethel, the terminal _u_ of the nominative

being retained in the name of Abraham’s nephew. If this be the case, he

may have been so named after the “Bethel of cedar” (see p. 201), though

there is just the possibility that, as Gesenius suggests, Bethuel may be

for Methuel, the Babylonian _Mut-îli_, “man of god.” That the Bethel of

Haran was a heathen place of worship, however, can hardly be regarded as

any objection to one of the family to which Abraham and his descendants

belonged bearing such a name. If the Hebrew text be correct, therefore, it

is probably an abbreviation, forming part of a name similar to

Ê-sagila-zērâ-êpuš, “Ê-sagila (the temple of Belus at Babylon) has created

a name,” and others like it. It is also to be noted, that the name given

by Leah to the son which Zilpah her handmaid bore to Jacob after she

herself left off bearing was Gad, rendered in the Hebrew itself by

“Fortunate,” and probably the name of a west Semitic deity, Gad, the god

of good fortune.

But the heathenism of the portion of the family living at or near Haran is

clearly proved by the matter of the teraphim, which Rachel stole from her

father Laban. It is true that they are generally regarded as figures used

for the purpose of magic, but as Laban himself calls them his “gods,”

there is every probability that they were worshipped as such. It is to be

regarded as simply an indication of the difficulty which most dwellers in

the midst of polytheism in those days must have found in dissociating

themselves from the practices of those with whom they came daily into

contact. They may have had all the tendencies possible towards monotheism,

but how were they to embrace it in all its perfection in the midst of a

population recounting from time to time the many wonderful things which

their gods and protecting genii did for them, and which the hearer had no

opportunity of probing to the bottom and estimating at their true value?

As these people were, to all appearance, but simple shepherds (though

sufficiently wealthy), it is hardly to be expected of them that they would

go deeply into philosophical considerations concerning the Deity,

especially when we remember that the family of Laban was in close contact

with the idolatry of Haran.

With regard to the teraphim which Rachel took with her when Jacob fled

from her father, there is not much that can be said. Figures so called

were in common use among the Jews and other nations for purposes of magic,

and to all appearance they were statues of deities (as indicated in the

passage now under consideration) which were consulted by some means when

anything of importance was about to be undertaken. To all appearance they

were the household gods, like the Lares and Penates of the Romans, though

they were also used when on expeditions, as when Nebuchadnezzar is

represented (Ezekiel xxi. 21-26 in the Heb.) standing at the parting of

the ways to use divination, shaking arrows to and fro, consulting the

teraphim, and looking at a liver to decide what his success in the

operations which he was about to undertake against Jerusalem would be. In

Zechariah x. 2 also, there is a reference to the teraphim, which, as

oracles, had “spoken vanity,” and the diviners had “seen a lie.” Little

doubt exists, therefore, as to what these things were used for. With

regard to their form, it is supposed that they were similar to the small

figures found in the ruins of the ancient palaces of Assyria, generally

under the pavement, in all probability images of the gods of Assyria who,

by their effigies, were supposed to protect the palace and its

inhabitants. Some of these are four-winged figures similar to those found

on the bas-reliefs, whilst others are representations of a deity, probably

the god Êa or Aê, the god of the sea, who is represented clothed with a

fish’s skin, etc. The size of these teraphim must have differed greatly;

that which was placed in David’s bed by Michal, his wife, to deceive

Saul’s messengers, must necessarily have been of considerable

height—probably not much under that of a man. Those hidden by Rachel when

her father came to look for them, however, must have been comparatively

small, and the figures found in the foundations of the Assyrian palaces

rarely measure more than six inches in height.

In the light of what this incident of the teraphim reveals, it is not to

be wondered at that Jacob, when about to go up to Bethel from Shechem,

after the treacherous spoiling of the city by his sons, should have said,

“Put away the strange gods that are among you,” and it shows also a

considerable amount of tolerance on the part of the patriarch. Did he,

too, believe that the gods which his relatives and dependents worshipped

were in any sense divine beings? In any case, it is to be noted that,

after they were given to him, he did not destroy them, but hid them, with

the trinkets which they possessed—in all probability in many cases heathen

emblems—under the terebinth-tree which was by Shechem.

To all appearance they were allowed to keep these strange gods and heathen

emblems until they set out on the journey to make the commanded sacrifices

to the God who had revealed Himself to Jacob at Bethel.

It was after this sacrifice at Bethel that God again revealed Himself as

El-shaddai, His name in the text of “the priestly narrator” (Gen. xvii.

1), and in many other passages. The word Shaddai here is generally

connected with the root _shadād_, “to act powerfully,” and the translation

“God Almighty” is based on this. As the word is a very difficult one,

however, there have been many attempts to find a more satisfactory

etymology. It is to be noted, therefore, that there is in Semitic

Babylonian a word _šadû_, often applied to deities, and expressed, in the

old language of Akkad, by means of the same ideograph (KURA) as is used

for mountain (_šadû_ or _šaddû_ in Semitic Babylonian). This word _šadû_,

applied to divinities, Prof. Fried. Delitzsch regards as being distinct

from the word for mountain, notwithstanding that they are both expressed

by the same word in Akkadian, and renders it by the words “lord,”

“commander.”

Have we, in this word, an Assyro-Babylonian form of the Hebrew Shaddai? We

do not know, but the likeness between the two is worth referring to. The

god Bêl, for example, is called _šadû rabû_, “the great mighty one,” and

Sin, with other deities, bears a similar title, found in such names as

Sin-šadûnu, “the Moon-god is our lord.” That the idea of almightiness

should be expressed by means of the borrowed Akkadian idiomatic use of the

word KURA, “mountain,” as that which towers up commandingly, a mighty

mass, would seem to offer an acceptable explanation of what has long been

felt as a difficulty. “But God knows best.”

After a long and noteworthy account of Esau and his descendants, the

interest of the narrative shifts, and is transferred to Joseph, the

youngest but one of Jacob’s twelve sons, though the narrative is for a

time interrupted by the story of Judah.

With the transfer of the interest of the narrative to Joseph, Egypt, the

country into which he was sold as a slave, becomes the scene of the

action. Here a vast and interesting store of material meets the student,

which, unfortunately, we can only very imperfectly touch upon, partly from

considerations of space, and partly because the present work is intended

to be more the story of the Hebrews in connection with Babylonia and

Assyria. It is necessary, however, to speak of Egypt not only on account

of the continuity of the narrative, but also as an introduction to the

chapter in which the Tel-el-Amarna tablets are examined—documents found in

Egypt, and addressed to an Egyptian king.

There is no doubt, that in the story of Joseph there exists a considerable

amount of what is known as “local colour.” This is shown by the freedom

which the women of Egypt evidently enjoyed (as exhibited in the story of

Potiphar’s wife), the matter of Joseph shaving himself before going to see

Pharaoh, the many undoubtedly Egyptian names, etc. These, of course, are

undeniable points in favour of the authenticity of the narrative, which,

perfect as it is, omits one important thing, namely, the name of the

Pharaoh who ruled at the time. That there should be such an omission in

the comparatively unimportant references to the visits of Abraham and

Isaac to Egypt is, perhaps, not so very strange, but that there should be

no clue to the identity of the Egyptian ruler under whom Joseph entered

Egypt, nor to the persecutor of the Israelites under whose reign they went

forth from what had become to them practically a hostile land, is

noteworthy, and a matter for great regret. It is, therefore, not to be

wondered at that scholars have arisen who doubt the whole story, for the

least flaw in a narrative in the present day, when unbelief and the desire

for scientific proof meet one on every hand, will cause a thinking man to

doubt anything and everything.

The degree of civilization to which Egypt had attained at this period, and

probably thousands of years earlier, is so remarkable that it is difficult

for us at this distance of time to realize it. Whether the country was in

reality more civilized than Babylonia is a matter of doubt—possibly we

regard their civilization as superior on account of the monuments being so

much better preserved, and because, in consequence of the nature of the

climate (which is such as to preserve even perishable things), an untold

wealth of material exists. This was not the case with Babylonia, in which

country the annual rains have caused almost all woodwork to decay, and

only objects of stone and clay, and much more rarely metal, remain, even

these being in many instances more or less damaged and therefore defective

as really useful historical documents.

Egyptian antiquities testify to the civilization of the Egyptians, as has

already been remarked, from remote ages, and the inscriptions show that

the kingdom was well organized, and governed by rulers whose sway was

popular and in accordance with the wishes of the priesthood. This state of

things lasted, according to Prof. Flinders Petrie, until about 2098 B.C.,

when suddenly this exceedingly conservative nation, possessing as great a

dislike for foreigners as do the Chinese at the present time, found itself

attacked and invaded by barbarian hordes from Western Asia. From what

district these people came is not known. According to Josephus, they were

regarded by some as Arabians, but Josephus himself regarded them as being

of his own race, _i.e._ Jewish. Quoting from Manetho, he shows that, under

a ruler called Timaios, these people from the east, “men of an ignoble

race,” invaded the land, and easily made themselves master of it without a

battle. When the rulers of Egypt fell into their hands, they burned the

cities, destroyed the temples of the gods, and inflicted every kind of

indignity upon the inhabitants. At last they raised one of themselves

named Salatis (a name evidently derived from the Semitic root _šālaṭ_, “to

rule”) to the throne. This king made Memphis his capital, both Upper and

Lower Egypt become tributary to him, and he stationed garrisons in those

places which were most suitable for the purpose. One interesting point is,

that he directed his attention especially to the security of the eastern

frontier, because he feared the Assyrians, who, he foresaw, would one day

undertake an invasion of his kingdom. This, to all appearance, refers to

the Babylonian dominion, which, as we have seen (see pp. 124 and 155)

extended to the Mediterranean. As far as our historical knowledge extends,

his fears were groundless, as no serious attempt (and certainly no

successful attempt) to conquer Egypt was made until long after the time of

Salatis, when Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, succeeded in subjugating the

country, which remained under Assyrian overlordship until the reign of his

son Aššur-banî-âpli.

Salatis ruled 19 years, and was succeeded by a king named Beon or Bnōn,

who reigned 44 years. The next ruler of this race bears the

Egyptian-sounding name of Apakhnas, and ruled for 37 years and 7 months.

Next came Apophis, the Apepi of modern scholars, who occupied the throne

no less than 61 years, Ianias, who ruled for 50 years and 1 month, having

also a very long reign. After all these ruled Assis, 49 years and 2

months. These six, says Manetho, were the first of their rulers, and

constantly strove to exterminate the Egyptians by making war upon them.

Hyksos, or Shepherd kings, and their successors, he goes on to say,

retained possession of Egypt 511 years.

In the end the kings of Thebais, and of other provinces of Egypt, arose

against the Shepherds, and a long and mighty war was carried on between

them, until the Shepherds were overcome by a king whose name was

Misphragmouthosis, who, having expelled them from other parts of Egypt,

shut them up in Avaris, a tract consisting of about 10,000 acres. All this

tract the Shepherds fortified with great strength, whilst Thummosis, son

of Misphragmouthosis, tried to force them to surrender by a siege, and

surrounded them with an army of 480,000 men. He was beginning to despair

of being able to reduce them, when they agreed to capitulate, stipulating

that they should be permitted to leave Egypt, and go with all their

families whithersoever they pleased. This was agreed to, and they bent

their way through the desert towards Syria. Fearing the Assyrians

(Babylonians), however, who then had dominion over Asia, they built a city

in the country called Judea, of sufficient size to contain them all (they

numbered not less than 240,000), and named it Jerusalem.

From this it would appear that, taking advantage of the disorganized state

of Egypt about 2100 years before Christ, these Shepherd kings invaded the

country, and gradually consolidated their power there. In process of time

they had the whole of the country in their possession, and such rulers as

remained were allowed to retain their provinces only as vassals, being

really princes only in name. It is also very probable that if, as really

appears, they were barbarians on entering Egypt, they became civilized by

intercourse with the nation which they had conquered. This having been

done, the monarchy which they established conformed more and more with

that of the native Egyptian kings, so that their court and manner of

administration were, to all intents and purposes, Egyptian; native

administrators being appointed to many important posts in order to obtain

the willing obedience of the people.

As the rule of these Shepherd kings began about 2100 B.C., and finished

about 1587 B.C. (Petrie), it is clear that the visits of Abraham, Isaac,

and Joseph, including Jacob and his family, all fall within this period.

As will easily be understood, such a synchronism is not without its value,

especially when considering the historical authority of the Pentateuch.

That it was during the dominion of the above-named rulers that Joseph

entered Egypt is or has been the opinion of all the best students of

Egyptian history—Birch, Brugsch, Maspero, Naville, Wiedemann, and many

others—and there can be but little doubt of its correctness. It is

remarkable that there is no native record of Joseph’s administration, but

this is, after all, hardly to be wondered at, especially when we consider

the disturbed state of the country at a later date, when many records,

especially those of the hated conquerors, must have been destroyed, and in

any case there is the ever-present chance of some untoward fate overtaking

them, by which such documents, if they really existed, may have become

lost to the world for ever.

The strange thing about the foreign rulers who held possession of Egypt so

long is, as has already been pointed out by Prof. Petrie, that they

remained throughout to all intents and purposes a distinct nationality.

Intermarriage between the two races, even when they were on the most

friendly terms, must have been comparatively rare, and it is on this

account that the native princes succeeded at last in ridding the land of

the “impure,” as the native recorder has it. From this same record we get

the information that one of the Shepherd kings was ’Apop’i (Apepy), the

Apophis of the Greeks, and that he ruled at Hawar, a town which is

identified with Avaris. The only god which this ruler served was Sutekh,

identified with Râ or Rê (in earlier times also, to all appearance,

pronounced Ria), the Egyptian Sun-god. According to the Sallier papyrus,

from which the above details are taken, it would seem that Râ-’Apop’i, as

he is there called, sent to Seqnen-Rê, “king of the South,” proposing that

the latter should clear away all the hippopotamuses on the canals of the

country, in order that Râ-’Apop’i might sleep. If the king of the South

did not succeed in doing this, then he was to embrace the worship of

Sutekh, but if he did succeed, then Râ-’Apop’i promised not to bow down

before any other god of Egypt except Amon-Râ, the king of the gods.

This, of course, was a distinction without a difference, and is evidently

put forward by the writer as such, for the worship of Sutekh in all

probability meant the renouncing of the worship of all the other gods of

Egypt, a thing which no Egyptian was likely to consent to. On the other

hand, the worship of Amon-Râ by the Hyksos king would have been no great

hardship, as it would in all probability not have involved any change in

his faith, seeing that it was generally recognized that this deity and

Sutekh were identical.

The end of this story is lost, so that there is no means of finding out

how matters were brought to a head, and the flame of revolt kindled which

ended in the expulsion of Egypt’s Semitic invaders. What the historical

value of the fragment may be is uncertain, as it reads more like a romance

than a true history. In all probability, however, its greatest importance

will be found to lie in its local colour.(50)

Joseph, on arriving in Egypt, therefore, found himself, to all intents and

purposes, among friends. The man to whom the Ishmaelites sold him was, as

stated in the sacred narrative, Potiphar, “an officer of Pharaoh’s,

captain of the guard, an Egyptian.” The writer of the narrative evidently

wished to convey the idea that a man in the service of the king of Egypt,

and bearing an Egyptian name, was not necessarily a native of the country.

One in the favour of the Semitic ruler of the country, and enjoying his

confidence, would naturally be favourably disposed towards a person of

Semitic race falling into his hands, and this was actually the case with

the Hebrew youth, who “found grace in his sight,” and became overseer of

all his house. Indeed, it is possibly on account of this kindly

disposition towards him (though also, and perhaps chiefly, on account of

his being of the same race as the then ruler of Egypt), that Joseph was

not at once put to death by his enraged master on hearing his wife’s lying

accusation against him, for no man, in those days, would have looked

leniently upon such a crime as that with which Joseph was charged. In

connection with this, it is noteworthy that he is said to have been

consigned to “the prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were

bound.” Here, being of Semitic race, and helped by his God, he obtained

the favour of the keeper of the prison, whose trusted deputy he became.

Later on, after interpreting to the king’s imprisoned chief butler his

dream, he asks this official, when he should again be restored to his

place, to make mention of him to Pharaoh, stating that he had been stolen

away out of the land of the Hebrews, and had also done nothing to merit

being detained a prisoner in that place. To all appearance he firmly

believed that his nationality would favour him.

In accordance with his wish, so it turned out, for after two years mention

was made of him by the chief butler to Pharaoh, and he is careful to state

that Joseph was “an Hebrew.” When called, by the ruler of Egypt, in

accordance with the custom of the country, Joseph shaved himself, and put

on other clothes, before entering the royal presence. The sympathy of the

king towards him was manifested immediately after his interpretation of

his dreams, and he was at once, with Oriental promptitude, made governor

of all the land of Egypt, receiving from the king his ring in token of the

authority conferred upon him. The hero’s complete Egyptianizing is to all

appearance terminated by his receiving an Egyptian name, Zaphnath-paaneah,

and marrying an Egyptian wife, Asenath, daughter of Poti-phera, priest of

On.

There are a great many points for consideration in these few statements.

As has been remarked, it was doubtless due to the custom of Egyptian

etiquette that Joseph shaved himself, setting aside his Semitic prejudices

to the fashion, for it is supposed that Semites abhorred such a ceremony.

Surely, it might be objected, the Semitic ruler of Egypt would have liked

Joseph none the worse if he had retained his hair, and thus proclaimed his

nationality, as it were, on this occasion. And such an objection would

possess a certain amount of force. There is hardly any doubt, however,

that Semitic abhorrence to the practice has been greatly exaggerated, for

it was the custom for high-placed personages in Babylonia, in Joseph’s

time, to do this, and it remained the custom in that country until a very

late date. This was, in all probability, a sacred duty with certain

classes of people, such as priests and those dedicated to a divinity. A

Hebrew at that time would probably have had no objection, therefore, to

adopting the practice, especially in such a climate as that of Egypt,

where the necessity of keeping as cool as possible would probably be

recognized.

That it should be desired that the new viceroy should try to assimilate

himself as much as possible with the natives of the country was probably

the reason of Joseph’s assuming an Egyptian name and taking an Egyptian

wife. A great deal of uncertainty exists, however, as to the true Egyptian

form and meaning of the name Zaphnath-paaneah (better

Zaphenath-pa’eneakh). Many conjectures have been made as to its true

Egyptian form and meaning, but that of Steindorff, “(God), the living one,

has spoken,” is undoubtedly the best of all.(51) The meaning generally

given to the name of Asenath, his wife, is “Belonging to (the goddess)

Neith,” but a certain amount of doubt is attached to this rendering. As

for the name of Poti-phera, her father, of that there is but little doubt:

it is the Egyptian Pa-ti-pe-Ra’, “the gift of Ra,” or “of the Sun,” and

was naturally a very appropriate name for the priest of On, or Heliopolis,

the centre of the worship of the Sun-god. Potiphar, the name of the

Egyptian who bought Joseph from the Ishmaelites, is regarded as being a

shortened form of this same name.

Another point, and that a very interesting one, is the question of the

derivation of the word _abrech_, which the criers were ordered to call out

before the newly-chosen viceroy. Professor Sayce compares this expression,

with a great amount of probability, with the Babylonian _abriqqu_, from

the Akkadian _abrig_, the meaning which he attributes to it being “seer.”

He also refers to another word, namely, _abarakku_ (fem. _abarakkatu_). Of

these two, the latter etymology, on account of the consonants, is the more

preferable, though the former one would probably suit better in the matter

of vowels. But which is the right word?—they cannot both have been the

original of _abrech_. The meaning of _abriqqu_ is “wise one,” and that of

_abarakku_ “seer,” a high official of the Assyrian (and probably also the

Babylonian) court. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets show that Assyro-Babylonian

literature was known and studied in Egypt, and this would account for the

word being introduced into Egyptian. It must be confessed, however, that

seductive though these comparisons may be, the forms hardly fit, otherwise

nothing would seem to be more appropriate than that a crier should be sent

to precede Joseph during his triumphal progress through the streets of On

or Avaris, announcing that this was the new grand vizier, or the great

seer, who had successfully interpreted the king’s dream. One would like to

have, moreover, at least one instance of the occurrence of the word in

Egyptian literature.

Naturally the Jews of later days were very much exercised in their minds

that one of the favourites and primitive heroes of their race should have

married a heathen woman, daughter of the priest of the Sun at On, and

legends seem to have been invented to account for this undesirable

circumstance and explain it away. It is regarded as being due to this that

there exists a Christian legend, preserved in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and

Latin, purporting to give the history of Asenath. She is represented as

the proud and beautiful daughter of Pentephres (Poti-phera), of

Heliopolis, who lived in magnificent exclusion, and despised all men. Her

parents wished her to marry Joseph, the great prime minister, but this she

would not do. In the course of his visits to collect corn, Asenath sees

him, and at once falls in love with him. Joseph, however, will have

nothing to do with her because she worships idols. Shutting herself up for

seven days in sackcloth and ashes, she threw her idols out of the window,

and performed a strict penance. An angel in the form of Joseph then visits

her, and blesses her, giving her to eat a mystic honeycomb, signed with

the sign of the cross. Asenath, thus accepted, arrays herself in beautiful

garments, and goes forth to meet Joseph. He had returned to the house in

her parents’ absence, but notwithstanding this, the betrothal at once

takes place, and afterwards their marriage in the Pharaoh’s presence. Her

subsequent adventures include an attempt to carry her off on the part of

Pharaoh’s first-born, aided by Dan and Gad, and in this attempt the heir

to the throne loses his life. The original legend made Asenath a Jewess by

birth. (See Smith’s _Dictionary __ of Christian Biography_, and Hastings’s

_Dictionary of the Bible_, sub voc.)

To what has already been said about the points tending to show that Joseph

was viceroy in Egypt under one or more of the Hyksos or Shepherd kings,

may be added the fact that, when his father and brethren came to settle in

the land, they were instructed to say that they were shepherds, though it

is at once added that “shepherds were an abomination to the Egyptians.”

The only thing, to all appearance, that can be argued from this is, that

however the native Egyptians might be inclined to look upon the

new-comers, the ruler of the land (who is also represented as being

pleased that Joseph’s brethren had come) had no objection to them on that

account. In support of the contention that the period of Joseph was the

Hyksos period, it must also be pointed out that this new viceroy

introduced at least one measure which might be regarded as somewhat harsh.

He appropriated the surplus produce of the seven years of plenty, and when

the years of famine came, he compelled the Egyptians to buy back, “even to

their own impoverishment,”(52) what they had themselves previously parted

with for nothing. The reason for this, however, seems to be clear. The

Pharaoh upon the throne was of the same race as himself, and he and all

Semitic foreigners in the land, including his father and brethren, were

dependent on the same state of things continuing. What he then did would

have the effect of placing the native Egyptians still more in the power of

their ruler, consolidating the dynasty of Semites to which he belonged,

and going far, therefore, to ensure the permanency of its rule. In acting

as he did, Joseph was only doing what any other man in his position and of

his race would have done.

As has been frequently pointed out, famines occurred from time to time in

Egypt, and records of them are in existence. Even before the time of the

Hyksos kings, a failure of the waters of the Nile to rise to their

ordinary height would bring great want and distress. At such times the

governors of the various provinces of the kingdom gloried, as Ebers says,

in helping their subjects, and saving them from distress. Thus Ameni or

Amen-em-ha, whose tomb is at Benihasan, praises himself in the following

words—

“I cultivated the entire nome of Maḫ with many workpeople, I troubled no

child and oppressed no widow, neither did I keep a fisherman from his

fishing, or a herdsman from his herd. There was no head of the village

whose people I had taken away for compulsory labour, and there was no one

unhappy in my days or hungry in my time. When, however, a famine arose, I

tilled all the fields in the nome of Maḫ, from its southern to its

northern boundary, and gave nourishment and life to its inhabitants. So

there was no one in the nome who died of hunger. To the widow I allowed as

much as to the wife of a man, and in all that I did I never preferred the

great man to the small one. When the Nile rose again, and everything

flourished—fields, trees, and all else—I cut off nothing from the

fields.”—Ebers in Bædeker’s _Upper Egypt_, 1892, p. 15.

Amen-em-ha departed this life in the 43rd year of Usertesen I., or about

2714 B.C.

More interesting still, however, is the famine which occurred in the time

of Baba, or Beby, as his name is also written. This functionary actually

lived during the period of the dominion of the later Hyksos kings, and

therefore very close to the time of Joseph. According to Brugsch, Baba

lived and worked under the native king Ra-seqenen or Seqenen-Rê III., at

the city now represented by the ruins of El-Kâb. Though the famine of

which he speaks lasted “many years,” and notwithstanding that the ruler

whom he served was a contemporary of ’Apop’i, the Apophis of Josephus, in

whose reign, according to this Jewish historian, Joseph lived, it is

thought that there is no reason to regard the calamity here referred to as

being the famine of which so full an account is given in Genesis—such a

supposition is “entirely gratuitous,” according to the writer in Bædeker’s

_Upper Egypt_. However this may be, there is no doubt that it is a very

important parallel, and would imply that two disastrous famines took place

in Egypt in close succession.

The following is Brugsch’s translation of this text—

“The chief of the table of princes, Baba, the risen again, speaks thus: ‘I

loved my father, I honoured my mother; my brother and my sisters loved me.

I stepped out of the door of my house with a benevolent heart; I stood

there with refreshing hand, and splendid were the preparations of what I

collected for the feast-day. Mild was my heart, free from noisy angers.

The god bestowed upon me a rich fortune on earth. The city wished me

health and a life full of freshness. I punished the evildoers. The

children who stood opposite me in the town during the days which I have

fulfilled were, small as well as great, 60; there were prepared for them

as many beds, chairs (?) as many, tables (?) as many. They all consumed

120 ephas of durra, the milk of three cows, 52 goats, and nine she-asses,

of balsam a hin, and of oil two jars.

“ ‘My speech may appear a joke to some opponent. But I call as witness the

god Month that my speech is true. I had all this prepared in my house; in

addition I gave cream in the pantry and beer in the cellar in a more than

sufficient number of hin measures.

“ ‘I collected the harvest, a friend of the harvest-god. I was watchful at

the time of sowing. And now, when a famine arose, lasting many years, I

issued corn to the city at each famine.’ ”(53)

As, in Hebrew, “seven” is often a round number, equivalent to the English

“several,” the parallel is noteworthy. An additional remark upon the

subject of the Pharaoh of Joseph by Ebers (Smith’s _Dict. of the Bible_,

vol. i. pt. ii. p. 1729) is sufficiently striking. He says that the

Byzantine chronographer who is known under the name of Syncelles (he held

the office of Syncellus or suffragan in his monastery), like Josephus and

others, calls the Pharaoh of Joseph Apophis. Now Arab tradition, “in which

little or no reliance can be placed,” says that he was an Amalekite of the

name of Raian ibn el-Walid, and Naville, when excavating for the Egypt

Exploration Fund, at Bubastis, found a block with the name of Apophis, and

near it the lower part of a statue of black granite with the name of

Ian-Ra or Ra-ian, in hieroglyphics. In consequence of this, Dr. Rieu and

Mr. Cope Whithouse maintain that this Arab tradition was founded on fact.

“We must therefore leave it uncertain,” adds Prof. Ebers, “whether Joseph

came down into Egypt in the reign of Apophis, or in the reign of the

hitherto unknown Raian.” Perhaps both are right, and Joseph was in Egypt

during the reigns of two or more Egyptian kings. Traditions are sometimes

strangely correct, in certain points, though grossly untrustworthy in

others.

In Ebers’s article to which reference has already been made, the writer is

of opinion that Joseph met the king of Egypt on the occasion of the

interpretation of the latter’s dream, either at Tanis, the Zoan of the

English translation (better Ṣo’an), the Arab. Ṣân, borrowed to all

appearance from the Coptic Dzhane (Dzhani, Dzhaane, Dzhaani), from the

Egyptian Dzha’an, or at Bubastis, the Egyptian Pi-Bast, the Pi-Beseth of

Ezekiel xxx. 17, or at Memphis, the Egyptian Men-nofr, the Biblical Moph

or Noph. Of these three sites the first (Tanis) is considered the most

probable. It is situated at the north-east of the Delta, and was founded,

according to Numbers xiii. 22, seven years after Hebron. From this

statement, one would think that there must be some connection between

these two places, or else some historical fact is to be associated with

it. One thing is certain, and that is, that Tanis was the residence of the

Hyksos kings, who held court there for a considerable period, as did also

many who preceded and followed them. The ruins are extensive, and the

place is noted for its Hyksos sphinxes, in whose faces “the coarse Hyksos

type” is strongly marked. The officers under the Pharaoh of the Exodus

speak, in their letters, of the life there as being sweet, and praise the

neighbourhood for its fertility and the abundance of the food it produced

(Ebers).

Nevertheless, Bubastis (the modern Tel-Basta) may have been the place

where Joseph saw Pharaoh for the first time, as it was a place of great

importance, and had a celebrated temple dedicated to the goddess Bast.

Memphis, too, may be regarded as having claims, on account of its being

situated so near to On, the abode of Joseph’s father-in-law.

On, where Potiphera (“dedicated to the Sun”) was priest, was the

celebrated city of the Sun-god in Egypt, whose foundation went back to an

exceedingly remote antiquity. Besides Râ, Tum or Tmu (the evening sun),

Râ-Harmachis (the morning sun), his companion Thoth, Sehu and Tefnut,

children of Tum, and Osiris, who was venerated there as the soul of Râ,

were among the deities of the place. To these must be added Horus, son of

Osiris and Isis, god of the upper world or region of light. His mother

Isis was worshipped at On under the name of Isis-Hathor, corresponding

with Venus Urania. Besides these deities, various animals were held in

honour, among them being two lions, perhaps representing Sehu and Tefnut,

who were worshipped under the form of these animals; the bull Mnevis,

sacred to Râ or Rê; and the Phœnix, called by the Egyptians _Bennu_, the

bird of Râ, which was supposed to bring the ashes of its father to On once

every 500 years, after the latter had been consumed by fire. Other sacred

animals in this city were cats and a white sow. No wonder the Israelites

of old winced at the thought that their hero Joseph, so perfect in

character, wedded the daughter of a priest of this idolatrous city.

The shrine here was immensely wealthy. The staff of priests, officials,

and subordinates connected with the temple is said to have numbered no

less than 12,913. As the embodiment of the god Râ on earth, the king of

the land naturally gave this shrine predominance, and increased its wealth

by his gifts. This, added to the fact that the place had the honour of

giving him a title (“Lord of On”) of which he, in his turn, was naturally

proud, added greatly to the renown of the city. Besides the great temples,

it is said to have been also “full of obelisks,” which were dedicated to

the Sun-god in consequence of their being emblematic of his rays.

“Cleopatra’s Needle” on the Embankment, the obelisk bearing the same name

at Cairo, the Flaminian obelisk at Rome, and probably many others, all

came from this city. According to Herodotus, the priests of Heliopolis or

On were renowned above all others in Egypt for learning.

The Hyksos who held rule in Egypt for so many centuries are regarded as

having been wandering hordes of Bedouin Asiatics, called by the Egyptians

“the impure,” though they also spoke of them under their name of Amu,

regarded as being a word derived from the Semitic ’Am, from the root

_’amam_, meaning “people.” How early they entered the country is not

exactly known, but Petrie’s estimate, 2097 B.C., may be taken as the

nearest at present possible. In connection with this it may be noted that,

at the modern fishing-village of Sân, the present representative of the

ancient Tanis, which was the city of the Hyksos kings described above, the

faces and figures of the inhabitants are strange and unlike those of the

remainder of Egypt. They call themselves Melakiyin, _i.e._ Melekites or

“Royalists,” a name applied in the Christian period to a sect of the

orthodox Church. They were anciently known as Pi-shemer, corrupted to

Bashmurites, and also as Pi-Amu, corrupted to Biamites. There is,

therefore, hardly any doubt that these people, the descendants of the wild

and turbulent Bashmurites and Biamites who gave so much trouble to the

khalifs Merwân II. (744-750) and Mamun (813-822), may claim for their

ancestors either such of the followers of the Hyksos kings who, on the

expulsion of the latter, decided to remain in the country, or else of

those Semites whom the Hyksos found in Egypt when they conquered the

country, and who helped them to consolidate their dominion, partly from

sympathy and partly from interest.

Notwithstanding Joseph’s long residence in Egypt, it is noteworthy that,

like the Hyksos rulers of the land, he did not, to all appearance, become

in any sense Egyptianized, but retained his Semitic nationality to the

last, as is shown by his command to his Hebrew fellow-subjects to carry

his remains away with them when they, in the fulness of time, should leave

the country. This being the case, Kalisch has asked, very naturally, “Why

did not Joseph, like Jacob, order his body to be conveyed at once to

Canaan?” In all probability the explanation is, that the Apophis referred

to by the Greek writers was, as has been suggested, a contemporary of

Seqnen-Rê III., and therefore quite close to the end of the Hyksos period.

Joseph must, then, have passed at least part of his life under native

Egyptian rule, and at this time national feeling must have been more

violently anti-Semitic than ever. It may therefore be supposed that it

would not have been by any means politic for him to proclaim his

nationality in this way, for this might have the effect of endangering the

lives and prospects of his surviving countrymen, who were all related to

him, by attracting to them the attention of the hostile populace and

court—a thing which would, and did, happen soon enough.

A still more difficult question to answer would be, “Why did not the

Hebrews go out of Egypt with the Hyksos?” The answer probably is, that

Joseph was, to all appearance, still known and honoured by the native

Pharaoh, when he came to the throne, for what he had done for the country.

It was seemingly not until after Joseph’s death that a Pharaoh arose who

knew him not. It may therefore be supposed that, until that time, the

Hebrews lived unmolested in the land which they had so long made their

home.

CHAPTER VIII. THE TEL-EL-AMARNA TABLETS AND THE EXODUS.

Egypt and Syria before the Exodus—The testimony of the

Tel-el-Amarna tablets—The relations between the two countries

during the reigns of Amenophis III. and IV.—Burra-burias of

Babylonia, Ašur-ubalit of Assyria—Yabitiri, and others in

Palestine—The Ḫabati and the Ḫabiri—The Letters of Abdi-ṭâba

(Ebed-tob, Abd-ḫiba)—The Pharaoh and the prince of the

Amorites—Mahler and the date of the Exodus.

“Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than

we. Come, let us deal with them wisely, lest they multiply, and it come to

pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they also join themselves unto

our enemies, and fight against us: and get them out of the land.”

Such are the words which the new king who knew not Joseph, when he came to

the throne, spoke to his people with regard to the alien population which

had been allowed during a former reign to settle in the land of Goshen, a

fruitful district on the north-east of Egypt, east of Bubastis (Zakāzik).

It is the speech of one who feared that, if nothing were done to prevent

them from becoming too powerful, they would be a source of danger to the

state, as they might join, with every chance of success, in any attack

which might be made on the kingdom over which he ruled. It was, in all

probability, the presence of a similar foreign (Semitic) population in or

near this district, about 2100 years B.C., which had contributed—or

perhaps even made—the success of the Hyksos invaders, through which Egypt

had been ruled by an alien dynasty for five hundred years. The repetition

of such a catastrophe was at all hazards to be prevented. It would seem,

therefore, that the persecution of the Hebrews was not undertaken

altogether wantonly, but with the object of turning aside a possible

misfortune.

As the historical nature of the Exodus has not as yet been absolutely

disproved, it is here taken to be a matter of history, and this being the

case, it is necessary to try to identify, or, rather, to state what are

the most probable opinions, as to the rulers of Egypt at the time of the

Oppression and the Exodus. Ramses II. of the nineteenth dynasty is

generally held to be the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and Meneptah, his son

and successor, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Lieblein, however, would regard

this latter event as having occurred during the reign either of Amenophis

III., or his son, Amenophis IV., of the eighteenth dynasty. This latter

theory is based on the Tel-el-Amarna letters, which speak of the Ḫabiri,

roving bodies of men which went about Palestine stirring up the people,

and even compelling them by force to renounce Egyptian rule (which

extended in those days over the whole of this district). It will be part

of the scope of the present work to examine into this question.

After the death of Seqnen-Rê in battle (see p. 255), he was buried in the

usual way at Thebes, implying, as Petrie points out, that the Egyptians

had pushed their frontier some way to the north, “so that ceremonials at

Thebes were uninterrupted.” Further advance, he thinks, was made in the

reign of Kames, “the valiant prince,” as he calls himself, because Aah-mes

was able to besiege the stronghold of the Hyksos down in the Delta at the

beginning of his reign, about 1585 B.C. It is to be noted that two names

come, to all appearance, between those of Kames and Aah-mes, but these are

probably not those of important kings, though a part of the honour of the

progress made ought to be accredited to them. To all appearance it was the

efforts of the Thebans, who had been pushing their way northwards during

these last three years, which prepared the way for the successes of

Aah-mes—successes which placed him on the throne of Egypt, thus making him

the founder of the eighteenth dynasty.

Before he became Pharaoh, he succeeded, within four or five years, not

only in getting rid of the overlordship of the Hyksos kings, but also in

driving them out of the Nile valley, taking possession of Avaris, and

pursuing them into Palestine. Here, in the fifth year, he was able to

capture Sharhana or Sharuhen, some miles south of Lachish. He then went on

to Zahi (Phœnicia), and later defeated the Mentiu of Setet (the Bedouin of

the hill-country), attacking afterwards the Anu Khenti. On his return to

Egypt, he found that he had to deal with two outbreaks on the part of

those of the Hyksos (probably half-breeds) who remained, and these having

been reduced to subjection, there was apparently no further trouble from

the Asiatics remaining in the country. So popular was this founder of a

new dynasty in Egypt, that both he and his queen had divine honours paid

to them beyond those rendered to any other Egyptian ruler. His son

Amen-hotep I. shared largely in these testimonies of popular esteem.

After this the power of Egypt increased. The venerable captain of marines,

Aah-mes, relates that ’Aa-kheper-ka-Rê (Thothmes I.) went against the

Rutennu (Syrians) for the purpose of taking satisfaction, and marched as

far as Naharaina (Upper Mesopotamia), where he found that an enemy had

plotted conspiracy. On this occasion Thothmes gained many victories and

took many captives. Another official mentioning the Syrian campaigns of

this ruler is Pen-nekheb, who accompanied him to Naharaina. Thothmes III.

also refers to his grandfather’s conquest in Syria, stating that he placed

another inscription where the tablet of his father ’Aa-kheper-ka-Rê was,

and adds that “his majesty came to the city of Niy on his return. Then his

majesty set up his tablet in Naharaina to enlarge the frontiers of Kemi,”

_i.e._ Egypt. Niy was in the region of Aleppo, on the Euphrates.

Thothmes II. (1516-1503, Petrie) retained those portions of Syria which

his father had conquered. An expedition thither is also mentioned by

Pen-nekheb, who says: “I followed the king ’A-kheper-en-Rê (Thothmes II.),

the blessed one. I brought away from the land of the Shasu (Bedouin,

apparently the same tribes as those to which the Hyksos or _hak shasu_

belonged) very many prisoners—I cannot reckon them.... The king

’A-kheper-en-Rê gave me two gold bracelets, six collars, three bracelets

of lapis-lazuli, and a silver war-ax.”

Thothmes III. (1505-1449), son of Thothmes II., had one of the longest and

most glorious reigns in all Egyptian history. He was born at Thebes, and

crowned when about nine years old. On the death of Hatshepsut, the queen

regent, his father’s first wife, who, however, was not his own mother, his

warlike expeditions began, and he assembled an army on the frontier of

Zalu, preparatory to an expedition against the chiefs of Southern Syria,

who had rebelled. This was his twenty-second year. Next year, on his

coronation-day, he found himself, after a long march, at Gaza, on the way

to Carmel and Megiddo, where he defeated the assembled Syrian chiefs, and

utterly routed them on the plain of Esdraelon. The allies then took refuge

in the town, which was besieged, and they were obliged to capitulate.

Enormous spoils from this place, as well as from the other cities of

Syria, was the result. This expedition was repeated in the two following

years.

In his twenty-ninth year he made his fifth expedition to the Syrian

hill-country, Tunep, Arvad, and Phœnicia, from which latter district much

spoil was obtained. The two following years found him in the same region.

In his thirty-third year he set up a tablet on the boundaries of

Naharaina. The next year he made a campaign to, and received tribute from

Syria, Phœnicia, and Cyprus. In his thirty-fifth year he went to Phœnicia,

and received tribute from Naharaina. The year following this he received

tribute from Cyprus. After this he again went to Phœnicia, and he is

supposed to have received tribute from Cyprus, Syria, and the Hittites in

the fortieth and forty-first years of his reign. In his forty-second year

there was an expedition to Tunep, Kadesh, etc. Besides the above, he

either made himself, or dispatched, under his generals, during his long

reign (fifty-four years) many expeditions into other lands than those

mentioned above, and also took part in numerous works and public functions

in his own country.

The expeditions in Syria made by this king are told very graphically and

at great length. The march to Megiddo, the council of war, and the

dispositions for the attack, are given in full, and the king claims to

have himself protected his army when going through a narrow defile in

which all might have been lost had the enemy against whom they were

marching made an onslaught. Representations of the spoil taken accompany

the lists enumerating the amount, and show that the ancient Syrians had

attained to a skill, in the arts as then known, equal, if not superior, to

that of the Egyptians. Among the places mentioned are Arvad, Kadesh, Gaza,

Yemma, etc. Besides Thothmes III.’s own annals, there is an inscription of

one of his officers, Amen-em-heb, who gives his version, which, however,

is not divided into different years. This text mentions the Negeb, where

he took some captives; Carchemish, from which place he obtained spoil, and

other places. He speaks also of Thothmes III. having hunted elephants in

the land of Niy, one hundred and twenty in number, for their tusks. This

agrees with what has been stated from the Assyrian inscriptions (pp. 200,

201) concerning the existence of these animals in the Lebanon and around

Haran.

Thothmes III. was succeeded by Amenophis II., a warlike and vigorous

ruler, who followed in his father’s footsteps, and by so doing maintained

the power and influence of his country. Petrie (_History_, ii. p. 154)

argues with great probability that he was not of age when he came to the

throne, and that he was apparently not the eldest of his father’s sons.

His first expedition, which was a raid in Asia “to establish his renown,”

was probably, as Prof. Petrie says, in the first or second year of his

reign. “His majesty had success (in Shemesh-atuma of South Galilee), his

majesty himself made captives there.... Account of what his majesty

himself took in this day: living prisoners Satiu 18, oxen 19.” Later on he

had some further success, and took spoil from the Satiu with whom he

fought.

In his second year, six months after the above expedition, he seems to

have made a promenade in force as far as the frontiers of the Egyptian

domains in Asia, in order to assert his power, and as a check to any

disaffection which might exist. After this there was a triumphal return to

Egypt, where he held a festival on the occasion of the laying of the

foundation-stone of the temple of Amadeh. Among the captives sent to Egypt

were seven chiefs of the territory of Takhsi, near Aleppo, who were hung

up by the feet on the fore-part of the king’s barque. Of these six were

afterwards hung up on the wall of Thebes in the same manner, a

circumstance which suggests that the Egyptians were upon about the same

level as the Assyrians with regard to their barbarous customs in war,

notwithstanding their civilization and polish in other things.

He claims as his own nearly all the lands which his father had

conquered—the South land, the Oases, the Lybians, Nubians, Semites, Kefto

(according to W. Max Müller, Cilicia), and the Upper Rutennu, or district

of Megiddo.

Amenophis II. died in 1423 B.C., and was succeeded by his son, Thothmes

IV. His earlier years seem to have been occupied in asserting his power in

Syria, and his later years were devoted to Nubia. Naharaina and the Kheta

or Hittites occur in inscriptions referring to the former period.

According to Manetho, he reigned nine years and eight months. He was

succeeded by his son, Amenophis III. (1414-1379, according to Petrie).

At this time Syria was completely in the hands of the Egyptians. Constant

intercourse went on between the princes of the two countries, who in Syria

seem to have been contented with their subordinate position. It is during

this reign that the now celebrated Tel-el-Amarna tablets come to our aid,

and show how this was brought about. Alliance between the two countries by

marriage had taken place, and the royal and various princely families were

therefore related. Besides this, there was naturally reluctance on the

part of a prince of Syria to take up a hostile attitude with regard to the

king who had taken his daughter in marriage, as he would always be in fear

of endangering his daughter’s safety, and for the same cause he would

naturally try to restrain the petty rulers of his own district, including

those of his neighbours who were more of the nature of equals. In addition

to this, the sons of the Syrian chiefs were sent to be educated in Egypt,

and as the Egyptian ruler at the time had married Syrian princesses, it is

probable, as Petrie says, that the sons of Syrian chiefs, educated in

Egypt, were married to Egyptians at the close of their education. As it

was only stipulated that they should be restored to their native country

to succeed their fathers, they may, it is thought, have lived in Egypt

until middle life. This being so, the rulers of Syria would naturally

become imbued with the thoughts and ways of the Egyptians, and undesirous,

therefore, of throwing off the yoke. If, however, things were all really

as thus depicted, there is one thing which is strange, namely, that the

correspondence which was carried on between the two districts was not in

Egyptian (which the princes of Syria ought to have known sufficiently well

to write), but in Assyro-Babylonian, which was a foreign tongue to them

all, especially the king of Mitanni, whose native language was not even

Semitic. That the kings of Babylonia should correspond with the king of

Egypt in Babylonian was to be expected, but if the kings of Syria, or

their sons, were educated in Egypt, it is remarkable that we find so many

letters in the Babylonian language.

Apparently, therefore, everything pointed to a continuance of the state of

things which existed at the time of the king’s accession to the throne. It

was evidently his desire that nothing should occur to change the cordial

relations which existed between himself and the Egyptian dependencies,

hence the mild suzerainty exercised. There was an Ethiopian campaign in

his fifth year, after which, to all appearance, no warlike expeditions

were undertaken—in fact, it was considered that there was no need for

them.

The first wife of Amenophis III. was Teie, as the Tel-el-Amarna tablets

call her, the Teyi of the Egyptian monuments. She was daughter of Yewea

and Tewa, and was to all appearance of Asiatic nationality. Prof. Petrie

thinks that she may have been of Syrian race, and as a matter of fact, her

portrait shows her with a pleasant face of Semitic type and a pointed

chin. To all appearance, she was a personage of great importance in the

land, and when negotiations with the princes of the north were being

carried on, she was one of those who were taken into consideration by the

outlanders.

[Plate VII.]

Colossal statue of Hadad, dedicated by Bar-Rekub, King of Sam’allu, to

Hadad. El, Rekub-el, Shamash, and the gods of Yadî, in memory of his

father, Panammû, about 730 B.C. The horned cap which the god wears

probably shows Assyro-Babylonian influence. Gerchin N.E. of Zenjirli. From

_Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen_, Part XI., by permission

of the publishing-house of Georg Reimer, Berlin.

In one of the tablets from Tel-el-Amarna, it would appear that, besides

Teie, Amenophis III. had married a sister of Dušratta, king of Mitanni,

named Gilu-ḫêpa, for news of whom Dušratta wrote to the Pharaoh, sending

presents to him, as well as to his sister. Later on, the Egyptian king

asks Dušratta for one of his daughters, sending a messenger named Manê

with a tablet to that effect. As Dušratta in his letter to the Pharaoh

Nimmuaria (Neb-mut-Ra,(54) Amenophis III.) refers to her as the (future)

mistress of Egypt, it is clear that she was intended as the consort of his

son, Amenophis IV. From other letters which passed between them, it would

seem that the princess in question was named Tâdu-ḫêpa, called, in

Egyptian, Nefer-titi (perhaps a translation of her Mitannian name). It was

to all appearance the custom in those days, as at the present time, for

the kings of the various states to ally themselves by marriage with other

royal houses; and at a time when kings, at least, were allowed more wives

than one, it was possible for them to take pledges for the preservation of

peace by making use of the privilege. Quite in accordance with this are

the statements contained in other texts concerning intermarriages of this

kind, both Amenophis III. and IV. having likewise espoused Babylonian

princesses, daughters of Kallima-Sin and Burra-buriaš, the son of the

latter being at the same time betrothed to Amenophis IV.’s daughter. They

were also constantly making presents to each other, each trying to get as

much as he possibly could of the things which were not common in his own

land—gold, much gold, being the commodity that the king of Egypt was

expected to supply. The other kings sent him, in return, various stones

(lapis-lazuli being often mentioned), chariots, horses, and other things,

both natural and manufactured products. The women by whose means these

friendly relations had been established, made use of the messengers sent

to their fatherland to transmit messages to their relatives and ask after

their health.

From these tablets we obtain certain details as to the state of the Holy

Land and the surrounding country before the entry of the Israelites.

Besides the kingdom of Mitanni mentioned above, there were the states of

Alašia (supposed to be Cyprus), Ziri-bašani (plain of Bashan), Hazor,

Askelon, Lachish, Gaza, Qatna (west of Damascus), Accho, Simyra, Tyre,

Sidon, the Amorites, the Hittites, Dunip (Tenneb), Jerusalem, etc., etc.

Many of them were small states with the cities after which they are named

as capital, and naturally were obliged to enter into a league for their

common protection, or else accept the suzerainty of some more powerful

state, falling, if its protector went under, into the power of the common

invader. It must have been in consequence of this state of things in the

east Mediterranean littoral that Egypt was able to extend her power so

far, and subdue this large district.

From these tablets we learn something of their religion. To all appearance

one of the gods most worshipped in the extreme west of Asia was Rimmon,

the Rammānu (“thunderer”) of the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Addu or

Hadad of the Semitic nations of this district (the name Addu afterwards

became general as the appellation of the god in Babylonia and Assyria),

and the Tešupa or Tešub of Mitanni (Aram-Naharaim) and district to the

north (Armenia). At Tyre they seem to have worshipped a personage or deity

called Šalmayātu, whilst the Phœnician Astarte is commemorated in âl

Aštarti, “the city of Aštartu,” perhaps Ashtaroth, 29 miles east of

Tiberias (Petrie). As the word Ashtoreth is evidently a lengthening of the

name of the Assyro-Babylonian goddess Ištar, it is not to be wondered at

that this goddess should be mentioned by the king of Mitanni, Dušratta,

who refers to a statue of Ištar of Nineveh, which had been sent to Egypt,

and requests that it may be returned to him soon. The name of Nergal,

also, was evidently familiar to the king of Alašia, for he speaks of the

hand of that god as having killed all his people, when wishing to refer to

the prevalence of a pestilence there, Nergal being the Assyro-Babylonian

god of disease and death. In the same way Dušratta speaks of Šamaš, the

Assyro-Babylonian Sun-god, but he refers to him more as the luminary which

men love than as a god, though there is every probability that he was

worshipped in Mitanni.(55) Another Assyro-Babylonian deity whose name

occurs is Ninip, once in the name of Abdi-Ninip, “servant of Ninip,”

apparently a Gebalite, and again in _âl Bêth-Ninip_, “(city of) the temple

of Ninip,” in a district which Abdi-Aširta called upon to unite against

Gebal—perhaps the Beth-Ninip in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. In the

name of Abdi-Aširta it is to be noted that we have here, to all

appearance, the name of the _asherah_ or “grove” of the Authorised

Version, the “token” of the goddess Ištar,(56) with the ideogram for which

the word once interchanges. The Egyptian god Amāna (Amon) is mentioned

several times, invoked apparently as a god in whom the writer believed,

though he was the special god of the Egyptians and the Egyptian king. In

addition to the above deities, the names of men reveal Uraš, the god of

Dailem near Babylon, Bidina, another Babylonian deity, and Merodach, the

principal god of the Babylonians. Among west Semitic deities may be

mentioned Dagan (Dagon), Milku (Melech, Moloch), and others.

Notwithstanding a considerable period of Egyptian rule, therefore,

Babylonian influence, which had been predominant in the tract for many

centuries, still held the upper hand. Merodach was to all appearance

venerated, Nergal was worshipped as the god of death and disease, Ištar

was held in high esteem. It must have been during those centuries of

Babylonian rule that the worship of Tammuz or Adonis got into the country,

becoming one of the stumbling-blocks of the Israelites in later days, when

Hebrew women lamented for him, hidden in the realm of darkness where dwelt

Persephone (Ereš-ki-gala, “the lady of the great domain” of the

Babylonians), into whose realm, at great risk, Ištar, his spouse,

descended to seek him, but only escaped from the rival’s clutches by the

intervention of the gods.

Exceedingly interesting are the various forms of government in Western

Asia at this period. Among hereditary chiefs may be mentioned Etakama of

Gidši (Kadesh), Šum-addu, who is probably the same as Šamu-Addu, prince of

Šamḫuna, Mut-zu’u (see p. 286), and Azru, though this last is doubtful, as

in one of the letters he calls himself a governor installed by the king of

Egypt. The best example of an elected chief, however, is in all

probability Yabitiri, governor of Gaza and Jaffa, who, when young, went

down to Egypt and served in the Egyptian army, being afterwards appointed

to the posts which he held later. The power of the Egyptian kings of a

period somewhat preceding this is well exemplified by the fact, that

Addu-nirari of Assyria attributes to an Egyptian ruler the appointment of

his grandfather and father as kings of Nuḫašše, on account of which all

three rulers seem to have acknowledged Egyptian overlordship. An

interesting instance of female rule is that of Nin-Urmuru (?),(57) who, in

her letters, mentions Ajalon and Sarḫa (identified with Zorah), probably

lying in her district.

Most interesting of all, however, is the case of Jerusalem, whose ruler,

as will be seen from the letters quoted later on, was apparently elected

by some of the magnates of the district which acknowledged his sway, and

who were probably the members of a religious community. Nothing, however,

is known of the electorate or the system of election employed—all that can

be said is, that the ruler was not placed there by virtue of his father or

his mother, but by the “mighty king.”

The matter of the government of Dunip, one of the most important towns of

ancient Palestine, is also of importance, as it does not seem to have

possessed an autocratic head of any kind, and may have been a kind of

republic. Its government was probably similar to that of Irqata, which was

ruled over by its elders, acknowledging the overlordship of the Egyptian

king. A similar state of things seems to have prevailed in Babylonia,

where, however, the king of Babylon was naturally recognized as lord of

the country. In all probability the towns governed by their elders were

regarded as royal cities of Egypt, whilst the others were semi-independent

states.

The relations of the Egyptian king with foreign states is well illustrated

by the following—

Letter From The Babylonian King Burra-Buriaš (Burna-Buriaš) To Amenophis

IV. King Of Egypt.

“(To) Napḫu’ruria the king of Egypt, my brother, say also thus: ‘It is

Burra-buriaš, king of the land of Karu-duniaš, thy brother. My health is

good. To thee, thy country, thine house, thy wives, thy sons, thy great

men, thine horses, thy chariots, may there be very good health.

“I and my brother have spoken friendship with each other, and we said as

follows: ‘As our fathers were with each other, let us be friendly.’ Now my

merchants, who went with Aḫi-ṭâbu, remained in the land of Kinaḫḫi

(Canaan) for trade. After Aḫi-ṭâbu proceeded to my brother,(58) in the

city Ḫinnatunu of the land of Kinaḫḫi (Canaan), when Šum-adda, son of

Malummê, (and) Šutadna, son of Šarâtum, of the city of Akka (Accho), sent

their people, they killed my merchants, and took their money away. When I

have sent (Azzu (?)) to thy presence, ask him, and let him tell thee.”

(Reverse)

“(Ki)naḫḫi is thy land, and (its) king(s are thy servants). In thy land

have I been ill-treated—res(train them): make (up) the money which they

have taken away; and kill the people who have killed my subjects, and

avenge them. And if thou kill not these people, they will return, and both

kill my caravans and thy messengers, and the messenger will be broken off

between us, and if (this happen), they will fall away from thee. One man

(of) mine, when Šum-adda had cut off his feet,(59) he held him prisoner;

and another man, when Šutadna, the Akkaite (Acchoite), had caused him to

be placed with the servants, became a servant before him.(60) Let (them

take) those men to thee, and see thou to (it). And mayest thou know how I

fare. I have caused to be brought to thee 1 mana of lapis-stone (as a

gi)ft. (Let) my (messe)nger (come back) quickly. Let me know how my

brother fares. Do not de(tain) my (mess)enger—let him come (back)

quickly.”

It is clear from this, and from other inscriptions of the series, that a

kind of international law existed among the nations of the ancient East,

by which they were expected to protect the caravans passing through each

other’s territory, and, in fact, see that no harm came to any of each

other’s subjects. They were expected to punish all persons who may have

attacked and ill-treated or murdered them, and make restitution of

property stolen. The law (probably an unwritten one) was evidently much

the same as prevails among civilized nations at the present day. That

these ancient rulers always obtained from their “brothers” the redress

which they demanded, is more than doubtful. Burra-buriaš’s entreaty that

his messenger might be returned to him quickly points to vexatious delays

on former occasions, and probable failure to obtain any justice or redress

whatever.

The relations of Egypt with Assyria were similar to those with Babylonia,

except that the Assyrian king, as has been shown, was, in some respects, a

vassal.

Letter From The Assyrian King Ašur-Uballiṭ To Amenophis IV. King Of Egypt.

(Divided into paragraphs in accordance with the indications of the

original text.)

“To Napḫurî, (the great king?), the king of Egypt, my brother, (say) thus:

‘It is Ašur-uballiṭ, king of Aššur, the great king, thy brother.’

“To thee, to thy house and thy country, may there be peace.

“When I saw thy messengers, I rejoiced greatly. Thy messengers are staying

with me for a time.

“I have caused to be brought to thee as thy gift a fine royal chariot of

my y(ok)e, and 2 white horses of m(y y)oke, and one chariot without yoke,

and 1 seal of fine lapis-lazuli.

“The great king’s return-gift may be thus: Gold in thy land is (as)

dust—they gather it up. Why should it go round into thine eyes? I have

undertaken to build a new palace. Cause gold, as much as its over-laying

and its need (requires), to be sent.

“When Ašur-nadin-âḫi, my father, sent to the land of Egypt, they caused to

be sent to him 20 talents of gold.

“When the Ḫanigalbatian king sent to Egypt to thy father, he caused 20

talents of go(ld) to be brought to him.

“(Behold), thou hast caused to be brought ... gold to the

Ḫani(gal)ba(tian) king ... and to me, (but f)or the going and returning it

suffices (?) not for wages for my messengers.

“If friendship be desirable unto thee, cause much gold to be brought; and

as it will be thy house, send, and let them take what thou desirest.

“We are distant countries—in this wise let our messengers go about.

“Those who delayed thy messengers were the Sutites, their persecutors;

dead (was I) until I had sent, and they had taken the persecuting Sutites.

Their bands (?) shall verily not delay my messengers.

“As for messengers abroad, why should they be detained and die there? If

they stay abroad, the king will have the advantage, so let him stay and

let him die abroad—let the king then have the advantage. And if not, why

should the messengers whom we send die abroad? ... attack the messengers

and cause them to die abroad.”

The last paragraph is difficult to understand on account of its being so

mutilated, but the sense of the whole seems now to be fairly clear.

Ašur-uballiṭ desires to be on friendly terms with Egypt, but he is anxious

to get, above all, the precious metal which was said to be so plentiful

there, and for which all the rulers of Western Asia seem to have hungered.

And this leads to the interesting statement in the fifth paragraph, in

which gold in Egypt is said to have been as dust; and there is the

question, “Why should it go round into thine eyes?” (_Amminî ina ênē-ka

isaḫḫur?_) implying that, being dust, it behaved as dust, and was in that

respect undesirable, and therefore to be got rid of. He would like to have

some for the decoration of his palace—his father, and the king of

Ḫanigalbat had been favoured in this way. Let it not be as little

(apparently), as that sent to the Ḫanigalbatian king, for that would not

suffice to pay his messengers. The interchange of things needed as

presents made good friends. It was a lawless band of Sutites who had

detained the Egyptian king’s messengers, and he was as one dead until his

people had stopped their depredations. It was useful to a king that his

ambassadors lived and died abroad, but not that they should be attacked

and killed there.

The relations of Egypt with another class of ruler is well illustrated by

the following letter from a prince or governor brought up in Egypt—

Yabitiri Asserts His Faithfulness, And Touches Upon His Early Life.

“To the king my lord, my gods, my Sun-gods, say also thus: ‘(it is)

Yabitiri thy servant, the dust of thy feet. At the feet of the king my

lord, my gods, my Sun-gods, seven times, and twice seven times I fall.

Furthermore, behold, I am a faithful servant(61) of the king my lord. I

look here, and I look there,(62) and it is not clear; then I look upon the

king my lord, and it is clear. And the brick-foundation may give way from

beneath its wall, but I will not give way from beneath the feet of the

king my lord. And the king my lord may ask Yanḫama, his official,

(concerning) when I was young, and they sent me down to Egypt, where I

served the king my lord, and stood in the city-gate of the king my lord.

And the king my lord may ask his official when I guard the city-gate of

Azzati (Gaza) and the city-gate of Yapu (Jaffa). And I am with the hired

troops of the king my lord, where they go, I am with them, and I am also,

therefore, with them now. The yoke of the king my lord is on my neck, and

I bear it.’ ”

Apparently there had been spread abroad some statement reflecting on the

faithfulness of the writer, who seeks to justify himself by appealing to

his former services to the Egyptian king. His letter has a ring of

sincerity in it which is wanting in many of the communications of this

nature.

Reference has already been made to the caravans which passed through the

territory of the various rulers, and the protection which those rulers

were supposed to extend to them. Burra-buriaš, in his letter translated

above, complains that Babylonian caravans had been attacked in the land of

Canaan, and asks for the punishment of the persons involved. To all

appearance the protection of the caravans was entrusted to certain chiefs,

owing allegiance to the Egyptian king, who always held themselves ready to

perform this duty. The following translation shows how one of the chiefs

or governors of a Canaanitish district looked after the caravans, as his

father did before him—

Letter From Mut-Zu’u To The King Of Egypt.

“To the king, my lord and my sun, say thus: ‘It is Mut-zu’u(63) thy

servant, the dust of thy feet, the earth for thee to tread upon. Seven

times, twice seven times, I fall down at the feet of the king my lord.’

“The king my lord has sent by Ḫâya to speak of the Ḫana-galbat(64)

caravan. This I have dispatched and have directed it. Who am I, that I

should not dispatch the caravans of the king my lord? Behold, (Lab)’aya,

my father, (who was faithful) to the king his lord, used to send (a

caravan, and give directions concerning it. The cara)vans (which) the king

(di)rected to the land of Ḫana-galbat (and) to the land of Kara-duniaš let

the king my lord send. (As to) the caravan, I will bring it so that it is

safe.”

As will be seen from this, Mut-zu’u was one of the humble vassals of “the

king his lord,” who at that time—evidently the peaceful days of Amenophis

III.—was the happy possessor of many such. As examples of the relations

between the smaller rulers and their suzerain, may be quoted two of the

numerous letters of Yidia of Askelon, who provided the necessaries for the

Egyptian army in Palestine.

Yidia, The Askelonite, Concerning The King’s Representative.

“To the king, my lord, my Sun, the Sun who (cometh) from the heavens, (say

also) thus: ‘(It is) Yidia, the Askelonite, thy servant, the dust of thy

feet, thy charioteer.(65) I fall down before the feet of the king my lord

seven times and twice seven times, back and breast.’

“Now (for) my (lord), (for) the gods of the king my lord, my god, my Sun,

I guard this city, and again ... let me protect all his land.

“I have heard the words of the king my lord to his representative, when he

is not able to protect the country of the king my lord. So now the king my

lord has appointed Rianappa, the representative of the king my lord, to

whom(66) I will bring (?) good fortune for the king.

“Whatever cometh out of the mouth of the king my lord, lo, that will I

keep day and night.”

Yidia Concerning The Commissariat.

“To the king my lord, my Sun, my god, the Sun who (cometh) from the

heavens, (say also) thus: ‘(it is) Yidia thy servant, the dust of thy

feet, thy charioteer. I fall down at the feet of the king my lord seven

times and twice seven times, back and breast. Behold, I am keeping the

commands of the king my lord, the son of the Sun, and behold, I have

provided the food, drink, oil, grain, oxen, (and) sheep, for the soldiers

of the king my lord—provisions, every kind, for the soldiers of the king

my lord. Who would be a vassal, and not obey the words of the king my

lord, the son of the Sun?’ ”

Letters similar to the above are numerous, and show that Egyptian rule was

not regarded as burthensome—indeed, it may have been even welcome, tending

in all probability to the preservation of peace. It must have been

difficult, however, for the Egyptian king to hold the scales of justice

always even, for among the governors were always men who professed

faithfulness, but who aimed at throwing off the Egyptian yoke, light as it

was.

In all probability the trouble began in the north, that district being

farthest from the Egyptian marches, and what was going on there was on

that account longer in reaching the knowledge of the king. Judging from a

letter from Ili-rabiḫ, written from Gebal, Etakama, of Kinza and Kadesh,

smote the whole of the lands of Amki, “the territory of the king.” “And

now,” the inscription continues, “he has sent his people to seize the

lands of Amki and the places. Further, the king of the land of Ḫatta

(Heth), and the king of the land of Narima (Naharaim), have been

unsuccessful (?), and” (here the writer breaks off the narrative).

Another account of this affair is as follows—

Bêri (Or Bieri) To The King About The Attack On Amki.

“To the king, my lord, (my god, my sungod), say then thus: ‘It is Bêri,

(thy servant), the Ḫašabite.’ Down to the dust of the feet of the king my

lord 7 (times) and 7 (times) I fall. Behold, we occupy, in Amki, the

cities of the king, my lord, and Edagama, the Kinzite, has gone to meet

the soldiers of Ḫatta (Heth), and set (the cities) of the king my lord on

fire. And may the king my lord know, and may the king (my) lord give

field-soldiers. And we will occupy the cities of the king my lord, and we

will dwell in the cities of the king my lord, my god, my sungod.”

This and two other accounts, one of which is from “Ilu-dâya, the Ḫazite,”

all agree, and show that three officials were occupying cities in the

territory known as Amki (identified with _’Amq_, a plain by Antioch, or

_’Amqa_, N.E. of Akka), when Edagama (whose name also appears as Etagama,

Etakkama, Itatkama, Itakama, Aiṭugama, and Aidaggama) joined the Hittite

troops who were hostile to Egypt. It was in consequence of this, in all

probability, that the three officials decided to write to the king of

Egypt to let him know how things were going, and this they did in

identical terms, with the same expressions, and the same peculiarities of

spelling, pointing to the probability that the same scribe wrote all three

communications. In the letter of Ili-rabiḫ, from which a quotation is

given on p. 288, Amki is called “the king’s territory,” implying that it

was a tract acknowledging Egyptian supremacy, which Etagama was trying to

wrest from the Pharaoh’s grasp. It was the king’s friends who were

occupying the king’s cities (as Bêri, Ilu-dâya, and the unknown writer

call them), because they desired to hold them against this active enemy.

With help from the Egyptian king, they thought that they would be able to

do this without difficulty. There seems to be (as far as can at present be

judged) no reason to suppose that the beginning of the expulsion of the

Egyptians from Palestine was due to the over-zeal of the supporters of

Egyptian rule in that country, who, striving to extend the influence and

the dominions of their suzerain, drew down upon him, and upon themselves,

the hostility of all the independent states of Western Asia, as well as of

those which wished to throw off the Egyptian yoke. The Egyptian kings

would surely have warned their vassals in Palestine against the danger of

such action on their part.

As an additional light upon the events here referred to, the following

extract from a letter from Akizzi of Qaṭna to Amenophis III. may be of

interest:—

“O lord, Teu(w)atti of the city L(apa)n(a) and Arzauia of the city Ruḫizzu

are setting themselves with Aiṭugama (Etagama) and the land of (U)be. He

is burning the territory of my lord with fire.

“O lord, as I love the king my lord, and likewise the king of the land

Nuḫašše, the king of the land of Nî, the king of the land of Zinzar, and

the king of the land of Tunanat; and all these kings are for the king my

lord serviceable.

“If the king my lord will, then he will go forth. (But they say) thus:

‘The king my lord will not go forth.’ Then let my lord send out

field-troops, and let them come, since this land, as also, my lord, these

kings, is well disposed towards him. (They are) my lord’s great ones, and

whatever their gifts (contributions), let him speak, and they will give

(them).

“O lord, if this land is to be off the mind of my lord, then let my lord

send forth field-troops, and let them come. The messengers of my lord have

arrived.

“O lord, if Arzauia of the city of Ruḫizzu and Teuwatti of the city Lapana

remain in the land of Ube, and Daša remain in the land of Amki, then may

my lord know concerning them, that the land of Ube is not my lord’s. They

send to Aiṭugama every day saying thus: ‘Come and take the land of Ube

completely.’

“O lord, as the city Timašgi in the land of Ube is at thy feet, so also is

the city Qaṭna at thy feet. And, my lord, with regard to my messenger, I

ask for life, (and a)s I do not fear with regard to the field-troops of my

lord, that the field-troops of my lord will come, as he will send (them)

forth to me, I shall re(tire) into the city Qaṭna.”

Thus the trouble spread, and the Hittites and their allies took possession

of the territories south of the tracts referred to, trying, at the same

time, to win over to their side the governors who were faithful. All this

time posing as a friend of the Pharaoh, Etagama complained of the others,

particularly Namya-waza, one of Egypt’s most trustworthy allies, who, in a

letter couched in the usual humble style of the period, announces his

readiness to serve “with his horses and chariots, and with his brothers,

and with his SA-GAS, and with his Sutites, along with the hired soldiers,

whithersoever the king his lord should command him.”

Now in this letter there is one noteworthy fact, and that is, that the

SA-GAS and the Sutites are mentioned together as the allies of an

important vassal of the Egyptian king, the latter being apparently

wandering hordes of plunderers (see above, p. 283), whom Kadašman-Muruš,

king of Babylonia, sent from east to west “until there were no more.” This

took place at a somewhat later date, so that they still roamed about the

eastern portion of the country, between Palestine and Babylonia,

apparently giving their services to any power which might desire to make

use of them.

The question of the identification of the troops or bands of warriors

designated by the Akkadian compound SA-GAS is, however, of still greater

importance. Most Assyriologists regard them as being identical with the

Ḫabiri, mentioned in the letters of Abdi-tâbu or Ebed-tob. This, of

course, is possible, but it is unfortunate that no direct confirmation of

this identification exists. In the bilingual lists of Babylonia and

Assyria, the expression SA-GAS, duly provided with the determinative

prefix indicating a man or a class of men, occurs, and is always

translated by the word _ḳabbatu_, the probable meaning of which is

“robber,” from the root _ḫabātu_, “to plunder”. It is also noteworthy that

there is a star called SA-GAS, and this is likewise rendered by the same

word, namely, _ḫabbatu_. The fact that it is once provided with the

determinative _ki_ (“place”) does not help us, for this may be simply an

oversight or a mannerism of the scribe. Moreover, the difficulty of

identifying the SA-GAS with the _Ḫabiri_ of the inscriptions of Abdi-ṭâba

is increased by the word occurring in these texts (Winckler’s No. 216, l.

11), followed by the explanation (_amēlūti ḫabati_), an arrangement which

we find in others of these letters, when an ideograph has to be explained;

and when they are, as here, Akkadian ideographs and Babylonian words, the

second is always the pronunciation of the first—never the alternative

reading. Indeed, in the present case, such an explanation would be

misleading instead of helpful (were the word SA-GAS to be read _Ḫabiri_),

for the scribe tells you to read it _ḫabati_—the same word as is given in

the bilingual lists, but spelled with one _b_ instead of two.

In all probability, therefore, the _ḫabati_ were wandering hordes

differing from the Sutites in not having any special nationality, and

being composed of the offscourings of many peoples of the ancient East.

They were probably included in the _ḫabiri_, together with the nations

with which they were afterwards associated. The _ḫabiri_ were not the

Hebrews, neither the word nor the date being what we should expect for

that nationality, who were still in Egypt. The best identification as yet

published is that of Jastrow, who connects it with the Hebrew Heber, the

patronymic of various persons. Better still, however, would be the Heb.

_ḥaber_, pl. _haberim_, “companions,” also used of tribes joined together

to form a nation. Whether an advance guard of the Hebrews is to be

included in this term or not, must be left to the judgment of the student.

The gradual loss of the districts south of Damascus in all probability

followed. A letter from Mut-Addu (the only one from him) to Yanḫamu speaks

of the cities of the land of Garu (identified—though the identification is

not quite satisfactory—with the Heb. Gur), namely Udumu (identified by

Petrie with Adamah, though the form does not agree so well as might be

wished, and Udumu is the usual way of rendering the word Edom, which is

referred to in the cuneiform inscriptions both as a land and a city),

Aduri (Petrie: et-Tireh), Araru (Petrie: Arareh), Meštu (Petrie: Mushtah),

Magdali (Magdala), Ḫini-anabi (Ain-anab, if rightly identified—there is a

certain difficulty in the word possessing a guttural at the beginning and

not likewise as the first letter of the second component—probably ’Anab,

south-west of Hebron, the Anab of Josh. xi. 21), and Sarki. At this time,

according to the tablet, Hawani and Yabiši (Jabesh) had been captured. It

is probably on account of the occupation of the country by so many hostile

tribes that the protest of Burra-buriaš of Babylonia (see p. 281) was

sent, but it was in all probability exceedingly difficult for the Egyptian

king to afford any protection whatever to the caravans which passed

through the disaffected area.

One of the things which the Tel-el-Amarna letters show very clearly is,

that it must have been very difficult for the Pharaoh to know who were his

friends and who were his enemies among the rulers of the Philistines. The

Amorite Abdi-Aširta and his allies were from the first desirous to throw

off the Egyptian yoke, but this prince at the same time constantly sent

letters to Amenophis IV. protesting his fidelity. Other chiefs who were

hostile to Egypt are Etakama, the sons of Lab’aya, Milkîli, Yapa-Addu,

Zimrêda of Sidon, Aziru, and others. On the king’s side were Namyawaza,

who held Kumidi (Petrie: Kamid-el-Lauz), Rib-Addi, whose chief cities were

Gebal, Beyrout, and Simyra, Zimrêda of Lachish, and Abdi-ṭâba of

Jerusalem. Numbers of chiefs, at first faithful, went over to the enemy

when they saw the success of the league against the foreign power.

It is impossible to suppose that the letters now known (about three

hundred in number) represent all the correspondence which passed between

Palestine and Egypt concerning the state of the country during the reigns

of Amenophis III. and IV., and from the time the troubles there commenced,

complaints and applications for help must have claimed the attention of

the Egyptian translator literally in shoals. One of the most remarkable of

these is the letter from the people of Dunip, who say that, in consequence

of the state of things in Palestine, they belong no longer to the king of

Egypt, to whom they had been sending for twenty years, but their

messengers had been retained. Their prince (to all appearance) had been

taken back to Egypt by the king’s orders, after he had allowed him to

return to his country, so that they had not seen him again. “And now

Dunip, thy city, weeps, and its tears flow, and there is no one to take

our hands (_i.e._ help us). We have sent to the king, the lord, the king

of Egypt, and not a single word from our lord hath reached us.”

Were they really sorry to be no longer under Egyptian rule? or were they

merely desirous that their prince should be restored to them?

During this period, naturally enough, recriminations were going on on

every side. Those who were faithful very properly made complaints and

uttered warnings concerning those who were unfaithful. The waverers, the

unfaithful, and the hostile, on the other hand, were continually asserting

their fidelity, and accusing those who were really well-disposed towards

Egypt of all kinds of hostile acts against the supreme power. This is

evident from the correspondence of Abdi-ṭâba of Jerusalem, who, in one of

his letters, writes as follows—

“(T)o the king my lord say also thus: ‘It is Abdi-ṭâba, thy servant. At

the feet of my lord the king twice seven times and twice seven times I

fall. What have I done against the king my lord? They back-bite—they

slander(67) me before the king my lord, (saying): “Abdi-ṭâba has fallen

away from the king his lord.” Behold, (as for) me, neither my father nor

my mother set me in this place—the arm of the mighty king caused me to

enter into the house of my father. Why should I commit a sin against the

king my lord? As the king my lord lives, I said to the commissioner of the

king (my) lord: “Why love ye the Ḫabiri and hate the gover(nors)? it is on

account of this that they utter slander before the king my lord.” Then he

said: “The countries of the king my lord have rebelled, therefore they

utter slander to the king my lord.” ’ ”

The ruler of Jerusalem then seems to say, that the king had placed a

garrison in some city or other, but it had been taken, apparently by

Yanḫamu—there was no longer a garrison (in that place). The king’s cities

under Ili-milku had revolted, the whole of the land of the king was lost,

so let the king have care for his land. He would like to go to the king,

to urge him to take action, but the people in his district were too mighty

for him, and he could not leave it. As long as the king lived, and as long

as he sent a commissioner, he would continue to give warning. If troops

were sent that year, things would be saved, otherwise the king’s lands

would be lost. Abdi-ṭâba ends with an appeal to the scribe to place the

matter clearly before the king.

Another very important letter from Abdi-ṭâba is as follows—

“(T)o the king my lord, (my) Sun, (say also) thus: ‘It is Abdi-ṭâba, thy

servant. Twice seven times and twice seven times I fall down before the

feet of the king my lord. Behold, the king my lord has set his name to the

rising of the sun and the setting of the sun. The slandering which they

slander against me! Behold, I am not a governor, the king my lord’s

magnate. Behold, I am an officer of the king, and have brought the tribute

of the king. (As for) me, it was not my father nor my mother—it was the

arm of the mighty king who set me in the house of my father. (When so and

so),(68) the commissioner of the king, returned to me, 13 prisoners (?)

(and a certain number(69)) of slaves I gave. Šûta, the commissioner of the

king, came (back t)o me; 21 girls (and) 20(70) (?) prisoners I gave (in)to

the hand of Šûta (as) a gift for the king my lord. Let the king take

counsel with regard to his land—the land of the king, all of it, has

revolted, it has set itself against me.(71) Behold, (as for) the lands of

Šêri (Seir) as far as Guti-kirmil (Gath-Carmel), the governors have allied

themselves(72) and there is hostility against me. Even though one be a

seer, one wishes not to see the tears of the king my lord, when enmity

exists against me. As long as ships were in the midst of the sea, the

power of the mighty king took Naḫrima (Naharaim) and the land of

Kašsi,(73) but now the Ḫabiru have taken the cities of the king. There is

not one governor for the king my lord—all have rebelled. Behold, Turbazu

has been killed at the gate of the city Zilû, (and) the king (?) remained

inactive. Behold, (as for) Zimrêda of the city of Lakisu (Lachish), (his)

servants lay in wait for him (?), they took (him) to kill (?) (him).

Yapti’-Addu has been killed (at) the gate of the city of Zilû, (and) the

king remained inactive ... ask (?) him ... (let) the kin(g have care for

his land, and let) the king give attention ... (let him send) troops to

the land of (the city of Jerusalem, (?), and) if there are not troops this

year, the whole of the lands of the king my lord are lost. They do not

tell the king my lord (this). When the country of the king my lord is

lost, then are lost (also) all the governors. If there be not troops this

year, let the king direct his commissioner and let him take me—(send him)

to me with my brothers, and we will die with the king my lord.’ (To the)

scribe of the king my lord (say also thus): ‘It is Abdi-ṭâba, (thy)

servant. (I fall down) at (thy) feet. Cause (my) words to enter (pl)ainly

to the king (my lord). I am thy (faith)ful servant.’ ”

The final phrase resembles that of an English letter.

According to Petrie, Sêri is Shaaraim (Josh. xv. 36), now _Khurbet

es-Sairah_. If the character read as _gu_ in Guti-Kirmil (Winckler,

Gin(?)ti-Kirmil) be correctly drawn in the official published copy, there

is considerable doubt as to the reading of the first syllable of this

interesting name. Zilû, where Turbazu and Yapti’-Addu were killed, is

identified by Petrie with Zelah, north of Jerusalem. This letter gives an

excellent illustration of the state of the country at the time.

In another letter Abdi-ṭâba explains how all the lands had concluded a

bond of hostility against him, and the districts of Gezer, Askelon, and

Lachish had supplied these people with food. After this comes the usual

request for troops, and the indication that, if troops be sent “this

year,” the situation would be saved—next year there would be neither

countries nor governors for the king (in Palestine). “Behold, this land of

the city of Jerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave it to me—the

power of the mighty king gave it to me, (even) to me.” “See,” he

continues, “this deed is the deed of Milki-îli, and the deed of the sons

of Lab’aya, who have given the land of the king to the Ḫabiri.” He then

goes on to speak of the Kaši, who seem to have supported the confederates

with food, oil, and clothes. Next follows what Paura, the king’s

commissioner, had told him about the disaffection of Adaya. Caravans had

been robbed in the field of the city of Yaluna (Ajalon), but Abdi-ṭâba

could not prevent this: “(I mention this) in order to inform thee.”

“Behold, the king has placed his name in the land of Jerusalem for ever,

and the forsaking of the lands of Jerusalem is not possible.” After this

comes the usual note to the scribe in Egypt, followed by a postscript

referring to the people of Kâsi, disclaiming some evil deed which had been

done to them. “Do not kill a worthy servant (on that account”).

Yet another letter refers to Milki-îli and Lab’aya: “Behold, has not

Milki-îli fallen away from the sons of Lab’aya and from the sons of Arzawa

to ask the land of the king for them?(74) A governor, who has done this

deed, why has the king not called him to account for this?” The narrative

breaks off where Abdi-ṭâba begins to relate something further concerning

Milki-îli and another named Tagi. When the text again becomes legible,

Abdi-ṭâba is again referring to the fact that there is no garrison of the

king in some place whose name is lost. “Therefore—as the king lives—Puuru

(= Pauru) has entered it—he has departed from my presence, (and) is in the

city of Gaza. So let the king indicate to him (the necessity) of a

garrison to protect the country. All the land of the king has rebelled.

Send Ya’enḫamu (Yanḫamu), and let him become acquainted with (lit. let him

know) the country of the king (_i.e._ the true state of affairs”). Here

follows a note to the scribe in Egypt similar to that translated above.

One of the most interesting and instructive of the letters of Abdi-ṭâba is

that which Petrie regards as the latest of the series; and on account of

its importance, it is given in full here—

“(To) the king, my lord, (s)ay also thus: ‘It is (Abdi)-ṭâba thy servant.

At the feet of the (ki)ng my lord twice seven times and twice seven times

I fall down. (Behold, the deed) which Milki-îli and Šu-ardatum have done

to the land of the king my lord has been successful (?). The men of the

city of Gazri (Gezer), the men of the city of Gimti (Gath), and the men of

the city of Kîlti (Keilah) have been captured. The land of the city of

Rubute has revolted. The land of the king (belongs to) the Ḫabiri. And

now, moreover, a city of the land of Jerusalem, the city Beth-Ninip

(“House” or “Temple of Ninip”)—(this is) its name—has revolted to the

people of Kîlti. Let the king hearken to Abdi-ṭâba thy servant, and let

him send hired soldiers, and let me bring back the land of the king to the

king. And if there be no hired soldiers, the land of the king will go over

to the men, the Ḫabiri. This deed (is the deed of) Šu-ardatum (and)

Milki-îli ... city ... and let the king care for his land.’ ”

Whether the fall of Jerusalem followed or not is doubtful; nor is it

certain that the Egyptians were ultimately driven out. Other letters seem

to show how the influence of those whom Abdi-ṭâba calls the Ḫabiri, and

others the Ḫabati—the “confederates” and the “plunderers”—spread still

farther southward. Naturally more information is required to enable it to

be known in what manner the Egyptians tried to retrieve their position,

and how it was that Amenophis IV. delayed so long the sending of troops.

All the governors who were in the least degree faithful to Egypt united in

repeatedly warning him as to what was taking place, and urging him to send

troops. Had the rebellion or invasion—whichever it was—been nipped in the

bud, Palestine would have remained a faithful Egyptian province. All the

king did, however, was to send his commissioner, and, occasionally,

exhorting and even threatening letters, which had in all probability

little or no effect, except to excite a little mild amusement on account

of their erratic spelling. A very noteworthy communication of this class

is the following—

The King Of Egypt Rebukes The Prince Of The Amorites.

“(To) the Amorite say then thus, (‘It is the king’). The king thy lord

(hath hear)d thus: ‘The Gebalite whose brother drove him from the gate

(hath spoke)n to thee thus: “Take me and cause me to enter into my city,

(and a reward) then let me give thee—yea, however much, (though) it be not

with me.” Thus did he speak to thee.’

“Writest thou (no)t to the king thy lord (th)us: ‘I am thy servant like

all the former governors who (were each) in the midst of his city’? But

thou doest wrong to receive a governor whose brother hath driven him from

his gate out of his city.

“And (whilst) dwelling in Sidon, thou deliveredst him to the governors as

was thy will. Knewest thou not the hatred of the people?

“If thou be in truth a servant of the king, why hast thou not made

possible his transmission to the presence of the king thy lord, (saying)

thus: ‘This governor sent to me thus: “Take me to thee, and cause me to

enter into my city” ’?

“And if thou hast done according to right, then all the matters are not

true concerning which thou wrotest: ‘They are trustworthy,’ for the king

thought thus: ‘All that thou hast said is not correct.’

“And behold, the king hath heard thus: Thou art in agreement with the man

of Kidša (Kadesh), food and drink together have ye supplied. And be it

true, why doest thou thus? why art thou in agreement with a man with whom

the king is on bad terms? And if thou hast done according to right, and

hast regard to thy opinion, then his opinion existeth not. Thou hast no

care for the things which thou hast done from the first. What hath been

done to thee among them (the disaffected ones), that thou art not with the

king thy lord?

“Behold, those who attract(?) thee to themselves seek to throw thee into

the fire; and it is kindled, and thou findest everything very

satisfactory.

“And if thou do homage to the king thy lord, what is there which the king

would not do for thee? If on account of anything thou wish to work evil,

and if thou set evil, and words of hate, in thine heart, then by the

king’s ax shalt thou die, together with all thy family.

“So do homage to the king thy lord, and thou shalt live. And thou knowest,

even thou, that the king desireth not to attack the land of Kinaḫḫi

(Canaan), the whole of it.

“And as thou hast sent thus: ‘Let the king leave me this year, and let me

come in the second year before the king, my lord—my son is not here to

...;’ behold, then, the king thy lord will grant thee this year, according

as thou hast said. Come thou (or if thy son, send), and thou shalt see the

king at the sight of whom all the lands live. And say not thus: ‘Let him

leave me this year in addition.’ If it be not possible to go into the

presence of the king thy lord, direct thy son to the king thy lord

instead. He (need) not (stay with thee), let him come.

“And, behold, the king thy lord hath heard that thou hast written to the

king thus: ‘Let the king my lord allow Ḫanni, the king’s messenger, to

come a second time and let me cause the enemies of the king to be taken

back by his hand.’ Behold, he hath come to thee, as thou hast said, and

leave not one of them behind. Behold, the king thy lord causeth to be

brought to thee the names of the enemies of the king in this letter at the

hands of Ḫanni, the king’s messenger, so cause them to be brought to the

king thy lord, and do not leave one of them (behind). And brazen bonds

shall be placed on their feet. Behold, the men whom thou shalt cause to be

sent to the king thy lord (are):

“Šarru with all his sons;

Tûya;

Lêya with all his sons;

Wišyari with all his sons;

The son-in-law of Mania (or Ma-ili-ia) with his sons, (and) with

his wives;

The _pa-maḳâ_ of Ḫanni the _pa-itêiu_ (? messenger) who reads

(this) message;

Dâ-šartî; Pâlûma;

Nimmaḫê, the _ḳapadu_ in the land of Amurru.

“ ‘And mayest thou know: well is the king, like the Sun in Heaven; his

soldiers and chariots are many. From the upper country as far as the lower

country, (from) sunrise as far as sunset (_i.e._ from the extreme east to

the extreme west), great is the prosperity.’ ”

To all appearance Amenophis IV. trusted too much to his own prestige, and

that of the country over which he ruled. He was “the son of the Sun,”

“like unto the Sun in Heaven,” “the king at the sight of whom all the

lands live,” and naturally took it for granted that he was everywhere

looked upon with the same veneration as in his own country.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

As may easily be imagined, the expulsion of the Egyptians from Palestine

left the country in a very disturbed state, and marauding bands, having no

longer anything to do in the way of wresting territory from the Egyptians,

must have given considerable trouble to the native princes and governors,

now once more independent in their own territories.

The loss of Palestine, on the other hand, probably brought with it a

certain amount of loss of prestige to Egypt, which must have endured for

some time. In any case, the Egyptian kings who succeeded Amenophis IV.

seem to have made no attempt to regain the lost provinces.

Ankh-kheperu-Ra, the king who succeeded the ruler just named, lived for a

while at Tel-el-Amarna, during which time, in all probability, the tomb of

his predecessor’s six daughters was finished. Several rings of this king

exist, on two of which he calls himself “beloved of Nefer-kheperu-Ra” (or,

in accordance with the indications of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets:

Nafar-khoperu-Ria) and “beloved of Ua-en-Ra,” names of Amenophis IV.

During his reign the worship of the sun’s disc (Aten, or, if the

derivation from the Semitic Adon, “lord,” be correct, Aton) began to give

way to that of the national gods of Egypt. He reigned thirteen years

(1365-1353 B.C.), and was succeeded by Ra-kheperu-neb (1353-1344). The

paintings in the tomb of Hui at Thebes show that tribute was still

received from the Syrians (Rutennu), as well as from the people of Kush in

the Soudan. Evidently the road was being paved for the conquest of the

lost provinces of Syria.

After this came a ruler who seems to have held the throne only on account

of his wife being of royal blood. According to Petrie, he was “divine

father Ay,” and his wife’s name was Ty. He reigned thirteen years

(1344-1332 B.C.). During his reign a complete reversion to the old worship

took place.

Ay’s successor, Ra-ser-kheperu (Hor-em-heb), 1332-1328 B.C., was

apparently also a commoner, and is identified (Petrie) with the Hor-em-heb

who was general in an earlier reign. He is represented being adored by

negroes and Asiatics.

One or two other obscure names occur, and then begins the reign of king

Rameses I., who came to the throne about 1300 B.C. This reign was short

enough, but there is hardly any doubt that in it the prosperity of Egypt

was renewed. From the treaty of the Khita with Rameses II., the grandson

of Rameses I., we learn that the latter had a war with the Khita, and from

the fact that he founded a storehouse for the temple of his divine father

Hor-khem, and filled it with captive men-servants and maid-servants, we

may conclude that he was fairly successful in his warlike expeditions.

With his son, Seti (Sethos) I., or Meneptah (“beloved of Ptah”), we attain

firmer ground. In the very first year of his reign he warred in the east,

among the Shasu Bedouin, “from the fortress of Khetam (Heb. Etham) in the

land of Zalu, as far as Kan’ana (Canaan).” Kadesh, at that time a city of

the Kheta (it had apparently fallen into the hands of the Hittites during

the reign of Amenophis IV.), was conquered by him. Not only the Hittites,

however, but also Naharain (Naharaim), the country of which Dušratta of

old had been king, upper and lower Rutennu (Canaan and North Syria),

Sinjar, the island of Cyprus, and Cappadocia, felt the force of his arms.

His son, Rameses II., was associated with him on the throne, and

afterwards succeeded him. This took place about 1300 B.C. It is to this

ruler that the glory of the name of Rameses is principally due, and his

grandfather, the first who bore it, shines mainly with a reflected light.

It is impossible here to do more than touch upon such of the details of

his career as are essential in the present work. In all probability he is

best known on account of his expedition into Syria, and the conquest of

the Hittites, who, as recorded in the celebrated heroic poem of Pentaur,

were allied with a number of other tribes, including the people of

Naharaim, Aleppo, Gauzanitis, the Girgashites (?), Carchemish, etc. The

result was success for the Egyptian arms, and the Hittites, on the whole,

submitted, though some of the towns acknowledging Hittite rule, notably

Tunep, refused to accept Egyptian suzerainty, necessitating another

expedition, the result of which was, that the Egyptians found no more

opposition to their overlordship. In his eighth and succeeding years he

fought against the Canaanites, and in his descriptions of his operations

there, many familiar names are to be found—names of great interest to all

students of ancient Oriental history. It was in his eighth year, according

to the texts in the Ramesseum, that he conquered Shalam (Salamis W. of

Capernaum, according to Prof. Flinders Petrie), Marom (Merom), the spring

of Anamimi (identified with Anamim), Dapur (identified with Tabor by

Brugsch), and many other places.

Rameses II. is generally regarded as the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and

one of the tasks placed upon the oppressed Israelites was the building of

his store-cities, Pithom (Pi-tum, discovered by M. Naville when excavating

for the Egypt Exploration Fund) and Raamses, the Pi-Ramessu of the

inscriptions, concerning which there is a very interesting letter by an

Egyptian named Panbesa, who visited it. As Brugsch says: “We may suppose

that many a Hebrew, perhaps Moses himself, jostled the Egyptian scribe in

his wandering through the gaily-dressed streets of the temple-city.”

The successor of Rameses, Meneptah II., is hardly the son which one would

expect to follow such a father. According to Brugsch, he does not rank

with those Pharaohs who transmitted their remembrance to posterity by

grand buildings and the construction of new temples. And the monolith

found by Petrie in 1896 seems to imply that his lists of conquests were

not always so trustworthy as could be wished. Nevertheless, the reign of

Meneptah is one of the greatest importance, for it was he, to all

appearance, who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, as seems also to be proved

by the same document. As this is a text of the very first importance, a

translation of the concluding lines is given here—

“Kheta (the land of the Hittites) is in peace, captive is Canaan and full

of misery, Askelon is carried away, Gezer is taken, Yennuamma is

non-existent, Israel is lost, his seed is not,(75) Syria is like the

widows of Egypt. The totality of all the lands is at peace, for whoever

rebelled was chastised by king Meneptah.”

Now the statement concerning Israel has given rise to a considerable

amount of discussion. Naville regards the reference to the condition in

which the Israelites were as indicating that they had left Egypt, and were

wandering, “lost” in the desert. There is also some probability that the

expression, “his seed is not,” may be a reference to the decree of the

king, who commanded the destruction of the male children of the Hebrews,

which command, he may have imagined, had been finally carried out. The

question also naturally arises, whether the last phrase, “whoever rebelled

was chastised by king Meneptah,” may not have a reference to the

Israelites, who, from their own showing, were sufficiently peremptory in

their demands to be allowed to proceed into the wilderness to sacrifice to

their god, to bring down upon themselves any amount of resentment.

Exceedingly noteworthy, and in many respects startling, however, are the

researches and statements of Dr. Edouard Mahler. Following Spiegelberg as

to the meaning of the phrase containing the name of the Israelites,

“Jenoam has been brought to naught; Israel, the horde, destroyed his

crops”—a statement which hardly seems worthy of the honour of being

inscribed on the memorial stele of a king of Egypt—is the rendering he

suggests. The translation of the word _feket_ (which is rendered by other

Egyptologists as “annihilated, lost,” or in some similar way) by “horde,”

allows the learned chronologist to suggest, that the ideographs

accompanying the word Israelites indicate that they had already entered

the Holy Land, and were trying to obtain a foothold there.

Having made these statements, he proceeds to examine the whole question.

He asserts the correctness of the view, that Amosis, the founder of the

eighteenth dynasty, was the prince who knew not Joseph. The first king of

this new dynasty, he calculates, came to the throne two years after

Joseph’s death. With regard to the reign of Rameses II., he refers to the

festival of the Sothis period which was celebrated in the thirtieth year

of his reign. Starting from this period,(76) which, according to Oppolzer,

was renewed in the year 1318 B.C., he calculates that the first year of

Rameses II. was 1347 B.C., and that the Exodus took place in his

thirteenth year, _i.e._ 1335 B.C.

According to the _Pirke di Rabbi Elieser_, Dr. Mahler says, the departure

of the Israelites is said to have taken place on a Thursday. “This view is

also held in the Talmud (cf. Sabbath 87B), and the _Shulchan-Aroch_ also

maintains that _the 15th Nisan, the day of the Exodus, was a Thursday_.

This all agrees with the year B.C. 1335, for in that year the 15th Nisan

fell on a Thursday, and indeed on _Thursday the 27th of March (Julian

calendar)_.”

If we accept the theory that Rameses II. was the Pharaoh of the Exodus,

and that the Exodus took place in 1335 B.C., then Moses, who was eighty

years old at the time of the Exodus, must have been born in the year 1415

B.C., _i.e._ the fifteenth year of Amenophis III. Now the chief wife of

this ruler was queen Teie (see p. 275), a woman who was certainly of

foreign, probably Asiatic, race. In all probability, therefore, Teie,

being an alien and of a different religion from the Egyptians, was not by

any means in favour with the Egyptian priesthood, however much the Pharaoh

may have delighted in her. The daughter of such a woman, as will easily be

understood, would find little or no opposition to the adoption by her of a

child of one of the Hebrews, an Asiatic like her mother. This, of course,

would explain excellently how it was that Moses came to be adopted and

educated by an Egyptian princess at her father’s court, and that he had no

real sympathy with the people among whom he lived, though it raises

somewhat of a difficulty, for it is hard to understand how the Egyptian

king, sympathizing, as we may expect him to have done, with Asiatics,

should have ordered the destruction of their children. Nevertheless,

circumstances may easily have arisen to cause such a decree to be issued.

Another difficulty is, to explain who the people hostile to Moses were,

who in the thirteenth year of Rameses II. died (Exod. iv. 19). This has

generally been understood to be the king and one or more of his advisers,

though this objection, like the other, really presents no difficulty

worthy of the name, as there was no indication that the king was included.

Of course there is no statement to the effect that Pharaoh was killed with

his army by the returning flood after the Israelites crossed the Red Sea

(in Ps. cxxxvi. 15 he must be regarded as having been overwhelmed therein

in the persons of his warriors, who suffered the fate which ought to have

stricken also the king), so that little or no difficulty exists in this

portion of the narrative.(77) On the other hand, a difficulty is got rid

of if we suppose that the Exodus took place in the time of Rameses II. Dr.

Mahler points out, that Meneptah was succeeded by his son and heir,

User-kheperu-Ra’, who did not die, but reigned thirty-three years. The

eldest sons of Rameses II., on the other hand, all died during their

father’s lifetime, and it was the fourteenth of his numerous progeny who

ultimately came to the throne.

Dr. Mahler clinches the matter by making the plague of darkness to have

been a solar eclipse.

Whatever may be the defects of Dr. Mahler’s seductive theory, it must be

admitted that it presents fewer difficulties than any other that has yet

been put forward, and on that account deserves special attention.

CHAPTER IX. THE NATIONS WITH WHOM THE ISRAELITES CAME INTO CONTACT.

The Amorites—The Hittites—The Jebusites—The Girgashites—Moab.

Amorites.