intrinsic character of the numbers given in the original text, namely,
the arithmetical relation of the 215 years from Abraham to Jacob, to
the 430 or 215 years from Jacob to Moses, the frequent return also of
the indeterminate number 40, both in the first[191] and still more in
the second period, and lastly the nature of the numbers 480 or 440 as a
multiple of 12 or 11 generations of 40 years each, it appears to me very
natural that either a higher providential meaning, and in spite of all
other opposing considerations, the only correct chronological expression
would be seen in this play of numbers, or that this external garb of
numbers would be regarded as unessential for the religious—indeed, in
part, also, for the historical import of those narrations, but that in
the latter case all more exact chronological investigation of this period
must be relinquished.
The latter view must gradually prevail in stricter science. A criterion
was wanting in the investigation of the Old Testament, which might
decide upon a definite choice among its self-contradictory statements.
Each claimed for itself a like authority. If we believe that we may now
attempt a new solution of the difficulty, we rely upon the fresh point
of view which we can occupy for that purpose, since we now possess a
positive scale that may be relied on (independent of the investigations
of the Old Testament), by which we can estimate the Hebrew statements,
namely, the authentic history and chronology of the Egyptians, which more
than equals the Hebrew in point of age.
Now if it should appear that they can in no way be harmonised, science
would then, indeed, remain in its former uncertainty concerning the times
before Solomon, and we should lose one of the most important and most
acceptable corroborations of Egyptian chronology. But the result of our
investigations is more favourable, since the Egyptian order of time,
resting upon perfectly independent foundations, most decidedly determines
that there is a chronological principle throughout the historical
relation of the Old Testament, and not an arbitrary selection of Hebrew
numbers. By this means a firm foundation is given to the critical
examination of the latter, and both histories reciprocally afford each
other a support that cannot be shaken.
We must first of all show that the Egyptian account of the expulsion
of the LEPERS, given by Manetho, refers really to the same event as
that narrated in the Old Testament, as the Exodus of the ISRAELITES. We
shall afterwards determine the epoch which is recognised in the Egyptian
tradition, and, lastly, attempt to show how every other time is in like
manner excluded by the historical purport of the Hebrew narrative; that
there exists, also, a chronological thread which leads us to the same
result, and, indeed, that the authentic tradition concerning the year of
the Exodus has never been entirely lost among the Jews. From this fixed
point we shall then look back still farther into the times of JOSEPH, and
the accounts of the Greeks appertaining to that period, to which will be
added our views regarding the visit of Abraham to Egypt.
The following is the account of the Mosaic events which Josephus gives
us from Manetho, and partly in the words of Manetho himself[192]. After
describing the expulsion of the Hyksos, whom Josephus considered to
be the ancestors of the Jews, and giving an account of the kings who
succeeded that event, as far as Rampses, the son of Sethôs, he continues:
“After he (Manetho) had therefore related, in conformity with his earlier
narrative, that our ancestors[193] (the Hyksos) had departed from Egypt
so many years earlier, he then says that King Amenophis, whom he here
inserts, desired to become a beholder of the gods, like Horus, one of
his predecessors. He communicated this desire to one Amenophis, son of
Paapis, who, on account of his wisdom and penetration into futurity,
was believed to partake of the divine nature. Now this namesake of
Amenophis told him that if he cleansed the whole country of the LEPERS
and other unclean people, he would then be able to behold the gods. The
king thereby rejoiced, collected together all who were smitten with this
bodily disease, throughout the whole of Egypt 80,000 in number, and cast
them into the stone-quarries, which are situated east of the Nile, in
order that they should there work, apart from the other Egyptians. Among
them were some learned priests, who had been attacked by the leprosy.
But that wise and prophesying Amenophis began to fear the anger of the
gods, for himself as well as for the king, if they, the priests, were
seen at such compulsory labour; and he foretold, moreover, that others
would hasten to the assistance of the unclean, and would govern Egypt for
thirteen years. He did not, however, venture to express this to the king,
but, leaving behind him a written record, he killed himself. Upon that
the king became very much dejected. Then he (Manetho) continues verbatim,
thus: ‘Now, when these people had suffered sufficiently by the hard work
in the stone-quarries, the king yielded to their entreaty, and gave
up to them, for their deliverance and protection, the town of Abaris,
which had at that time been forsaken by the shepherds (Hyksos). But this
town, according to traditions of the gods, had always been a Typhonic
town. Now, when these people had entered into this town, and found the
place favourable for revolt, they appointed as their leader a priest of
Heliopolis, by name Osarsiph, and swore to obey him in all things. He
established as their first law that they should worship no gods, and
that they should not abstain from those animals which, according to the
law, are considered most holy in Egypt, but that they might sacrifice
and consume them all; also, that they should associate only with their
fellow-conspirators. After he had established these and many other laws,
which were entirely opposed to the Egyptian customs, he commanded them
all to set to work to build up the town walls, and to prepare themselves
for war against King Menophis. But, whilst he consulted some of the other
priests and infected persons, he sent messengers to the shepherds who
had been expelled by Tethmosis to the town of Jerusalem, and, after he
had let them know what had happened to himself and to the others who had
been injured along with him, he invited them to make war against Egypt
in unison with his followers. He would first of all conduct them to
Abaris, the town of their forefathers, and amply provide the troops with
what they required; but, if it were necessary, he would protect them,
and easily subject the country to them. Greatly rejoiced, they readily
brought together as many as 200,000 men, and soon arrived at Abaris. But
when Amenophis, the Egyptian king, heard of the invasion of these people,
he was not a little disturbed, for he remembered what Amenophis, the
son of Paapis, had prophesied. He first collected the Egyptian troops,
conferred with his commanders, desired those sacred animals which are
the most honoured in the sanctuaries to be brought to him, and commanded
the individual priests, more especially to conceal the images of the
gods most securely. But he sent his son, Sethôs, who was five years old,
and was also called Ramesses, from Rampses, the father of Amenophis, to
his friend (the King of Ethiopia). He himself, indeed, went forward with
the remaining Egyptians, who amounted to 300,000 fighting men; however,
when the enemy advanced to meet him he did not engage in battle, but
returned hastily to Memphis, because he believed he was fighting against
the gods. There he carried off the Apis and the other sacred animals
which had been brought thither, and repaired immediately with the whole
army and the remaining baggage of the Egyptians to Ethiopia. The King
of Ethiopia was, in fact, beholden to him; he, therefore, received him,
supplied his troops with all the necessaries of life which the country
afforded, assigned to them as many towns and villages as would suffice
for the predetermined thirteen years, in which they would be compelled to
be deprived of his government, and even placed an Ethiopian army on the
borders of Egypt as a protection to the people of King Amenophis. Thus
it stood in Ethiopia. But the Solymites who had come into the country,
and the unclean among the Egyptians, treated the people so shamefully,
that the period of their government appeared to all who then beheld
these impieties the worst of times; for they not only burnt towns and
villages, and were not satisfied with plundering the sanctuaries, and
abusing the images of the gods, but they continually made use of those
venerated and sacred animals which were fit to be eaten, compelled the
priests and prophets to become their butchers and destroyers, and then
sent them away destitute. It is said, however, that the priest who gave
them a constitution and laws, who was a native of Heliopolis, and called
Osarsiph (from the god Osiris in Heliopolis), went over to these people,
changed his name, and was called Moses.’ This and much more, which for
the sake of brevity I must omit, is what the Egyptians relate concerning
the Jews. But Manetho says further, that Amenophis afterwards returned
out of Ethiopia with a great force, that he and his son Rampses, who had
also an army, gave battle to the shepherds and the unclean, conquered
them, killed many, and pursued the remainder to the borders of Syria.
Manetho wrote this and similar things.”
Next to this Manethonic account, we shall place the Greek conception of
the matter as we find it in DIODORUS, xl. 3, taken from Hecataeus of
Abdera (and also in an earlier passage, xxxiv. 1, without his authority
being given).
“When,” says Hecataeus, “a plague once broke out in Egypt, most people
believed that it was a punishment sent by the gods. For since many
strangers of divers races dwelt among them, who practised very anomalous
customs, with respect to the sacred things and to the sacrifice, it
came to pass that hence their own ancient worship of the gods declined.
Therefore the natives feared there would be no end to the evil, if they
did not remove those who were of foreign extraction. The foreigners
were therefore quickly expelled. The best and the most powerful of them
united together, and, as some people say, were driven away to Greece and
other places, under distinguished leaders, of whom Danaus and Cadmus
were the most famous. But the great mass withdrew to the country which
is now called Judea, situated not far from Egypt, which was at that time
barren and uninhabited. The leader of this colony was MOSES, who was
distinguished by the power of his mind, and by his courage. He captured
the country, and besides other towns, built HIERSOLYMA, which has now
become so famous. He also founded the temple, which was so peculiarly
holy in their eyes, taught them the worship and the service of the
Deity, gave them laws, and regulated their constitution. He divided the
people into twelve tribes, because this is the most complete number, and
agrees with the number of months in the year. But he set up no image of
the gods, for he did not believe God had a human form, but that he is
one God, who embraces heaven and earth, and is Lord of all things. He
regulated the sacrifices and the usages of life very differently from
those of other nations; since, in consequence of the banishment which
they had themselves experienced, he introduced a misanthropical mode of
life, hostile to strangers.”
The statement in the earlier passage of DIODORUS, xxxiv. 1, sounds far
more bitter, where he says “that they (the Jews) alone among all nations
scorn any intercourse with others[194], and look upon every one as their
enemy. Their forefathers, also, were driven out of Egypt as disgraced and
hated by the gods; and in order to cleanse the country, those attacked
with the _white_ sickness and leprosy had been collected together and
cast beyond the frontiers as an accursed race. But the expelled people
had conquered the country round Jerusalem, had formed the nation of the
Jews, and transmitted to their descendants their hatred of mankind. On
that account also they had adopted perfectly anomalous laws, neither to
eat with any other people, nor to show them any kindness.” “Antiochus
Epiphanes, after he had conquered the Jews, entered into their holy of
holies, into which only the priests were admitted; he there found a stone
image of a bearded man, who sat upon an ass, and held a book in his hand.
He took this for Moses, who had founded Jerusalem, organised the people,
given them laws, and introduced the disgraceful and misanthropical
customs.”
Now if we compare these relations, which evidently refer to Egyptian and
not to Jewish statements, with the representation we meet with in the
Hebrew conception of the matter, we cannot mistake the general agreement
of the most essential features.
Differing entirely from the former Exodus of the Hyksos, the description
of which is likewise preserved to us by Manetho, here, it is not an open
enemy who is to be subdued, but people of foreign descent, peaceably
dwelling in the land, increasing, however, to a dangerous extent, and
who inspired the Egyptians with fear and hatred. It is true that neither
Manetho, nor any one of the authors we have named, expressly say that
the expelled people were of a different race from the Egyptians; but the
cause of this may have been that the entrance of the family of Jacob into
the country which was so important to the Jews, probably passed unnoticed
by them. The influx of emigrants from the eastern and north-eastern
Semitic countries was apparently much greater in those flourishing times
of the Egyptian kingdom than it was thought necessary to recount in the
detached history of the house of Israel. The influence of those people
from Palestine who had been driven back under Tuthmosis, must only have
increased the former importunity of that people to enter the blessed land
of Egypt. But so long as they came singly and peacefully, and did not
shrink from entering into all kinds of intercourse and alliance with the
Egyptians, they must have been considered by the natives as belonging
to the country—as Egyptians. It is certainly a mistake to suppose the
Israelites were the only strangers in Egypt. They dwelt in the land of
Goshen, situated on the eastern border of the Delta, but of course only
a very small body in the midst of Egyptians, and many Philistines and
Arabians, from whom the Egyptian could not distinguish them. The immense
increase in their numbers, of which we read, is only to be understood in
this manner. How could there have been so distinct a division of the one
race from their Semitic companions, as is usually understood, when their
chief men themselves frequently did not shrink from mingling with the
Egyptians?
Even Ishmael had an Egyptian mother and an Egyptian wife[195]. Joseph
becomes so completely Egyptian that he is able to occupy the highest
position under the king, does not eat at the same table with his
brethren, and speaks to them through an interpreter. He also takes
an Egyptian woman as his wife[196], even the daughter of a Priest of
Heliopolis; and Moses himself marries an Ethiopian[197]. The same
intermingling between the races is afterwards still more frequently
mentioned, without being considered as anything remarkable or forbidden,
_e. g._ Leviticus xxiv. 10; 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35; and the same with
respect to other foreigners, the Tyrians, _e. g._ 1 Kings vii. 14. The
immigrants also did not limit themselves to the land of Goshen, which
had been first assigned to them, but “_filled the land_,” and appeared
“_to grow greater and mightier than the Egyptians_.” That the single race
of Jacob is not here meant, but all who had allied themselves to it, as
to a powerful centre, is again made evident in the Exodus, where it is
said[198], “_And a mixed multitude went up also with them._” There may
even have been many Egyptians among the mixed multitude; indeed the whole
population continued to cling, even long after the Exodus, so firmly to
Egyptian customs, and even to the religious practices of the Egyptians,
that they were constantly inclined to fall back again to the old form of
worship. Is it surprising that the Egyptians should have considered those
people as Egyptians—and called them so in their traditions—who, even at
the foot of Sinai, made an image of the holy bull, Mneuis, and solemnised
it with festivities, thus proving that the greater proportion of them had
adopted the Egyptian religion?
This was naturally the reason why the Jews were so frequently viewed
as an EGYPTIAN COLONY, _e. g._ by Strabo[199], Apion[200], and others;
and in this at least there is no contradiction between the Egyptian and
Hebrew accounts; they rather both assist in completing a more perfect
picture.
The emigrating people were described especially by Manetho, and by all
the other Egyptian traditions, as a race of “_unclean, leprous Egyptians,
godless, and hated by God_.” It is evident that the people designated
here were of foreign extraction, DIFFERING IN FAITH, consequently GODLESS
settlers in Egypt, the shepherd families, who, on account of their
occupation, in remembrance of the old hereditary enemy, were hated by the
genuine Egyptians, especially by the priests, “_for every shepherd is an
abomination unto the Egyptians_[201].”
The Mosaic account also corroborates the opinion that the _leprosy_
and the _white_ sickness (λεύκη, ἀλφός), which resembles it, were very
prevalent in those times, and particularly among the Jews, and that they
were most dangerously infectious. This is intimated by the strict laws
of separation issued by Moses against those attacked by the leprosy,
among whom, however, his own sister Miriam[202] is found; also by the
miracle of Moses, who draws his own hand out of his bosom white as snow
with leprosy[203], and afterwards afflicts the land with the plague and
with noxious boils[204], and finally with the sudden death of all the
first-born. This perfectly explains the Egyptian account of the universal
_plague of the leprosy_, which had more particularly broken out among
the poorer and more uncleanly settlers, and which threatened the whole
Egyptian nation[205]. To this is to be added the belief of the strict
Egyptians that inward uncleanness and godlessness of the heart must
necessarily be inseparably connected with outward uncleanness and with
the leprosy, the most abhorred of the diseases sent by God.
It is said, by Manetho, that among these infected people there were
some learned priests. Possibly these were of the Egyptian race, and yet
were cast together with the unclean strangers. But there is nothing to
prevent our assuming that these priests were also of foreign descent,
and perhaps themselves Israelites. It is not, indeed, an improbable
assertion, that Moses himself was brought up as a priest of Heliopolis.
It is evident that Joseph could not, as a Hebrew, have been first
minister of Pharaoh, but that he must, at the same time, have possessed
both the rank, learning, and outward consecration of the Egyptian
priests, with whom he had also united himself by marriage; and that
Moses likewise, brought up in the house of the king, could only be
instructed, in all the wisdom of the Egyptian priests, through the same
medium of outward fellowship. Contrasted with the Egyptian prophets
and hierogrammatists, who equally convert their staffs into serpents,
change water into blood, and fill the land with frogs, he appears before
Pharaoh only as a wiser, and more highly endowed man, than those sages.
The name _Osarsiph_, is of little importance here, for even the name of
_Moses_ is expressly declared to be Egyptian, as it could not have been
otherwise. But yet on this very account it is worthy of notice, because
it is interpreted as being expressly derived from Osiris at Heliopolis.
As the principal god in that place was Ra, _i. e._ Ἥλιος, the service
of Osiris was undoubtedly most closely united with the holy sun-bull
of Osiris[206], the white bull represented in the paintings gold[207]
𓈖𓏠𓇋𓃒 Menes, or Mneuis, the same whom the people adored in the desert,
and whose worship was even introduced into Palestine by King Jeroboam
I., when he was recalled from Egypt[208]. A particular local worship in
HELIOPOLIS had been dedicated to this bull since the time of Menes; and
this very town, in which, according to the Egyptian tradition, Moses is
said to have been the priest of Osiris (therefore of the golden calf),
is, besides, always considered specially connected with the Jews. From
that town Joseph took his wife, and _On_—so Heliopolis was called by the
people—according to the Septuagint, was even built by the Israelites[209].
This cannot mean that they first founded the town, for it had been already
mentioned as the native town of Joseph’s wife, and is also named upon the
monuments even in the Old Monarchy, and in the annals as early as the
time of Menes; but it cannot also be explained alone by saying that
Heliopolis was probably the principal town of the eastern province of
Goshen, it certainly can only be understood to mean that the Israelites
completed the elevation and damming off of the town against the
inundations, of which we shall say more hereafter. The Manethonic
account is therefore important for this reason also, that it makes
Moses come from Heliopolis, and thence indicates his connection with
the golden bull.
It further follows, from the Egyptian recital, that the _sudden_
persecution of the unclean people had a special cause, and this
appears always to proceed from the advice which the priests give the
superstitious kings, as to how the distress of the leprosy, and the
degeneration and desecration of their religious services were to be
remedied. But in the desire not to expel this whole race, but to destroy
them by hard labour in the country itself, or to let them perish in the
desert, or even to drown them[210], we at the same time perceive another
reason for the persecution, namely, the fear lest they should rise up
as open enemies of the country, and unite themselves with the banished
shepherds for a new subjugation of the land, a fear so well founded,
that what was expected, was soon most completely fulfilled. Here again
there is the silent acknowledgment that those unclean Egyptians were
principally of foreign extraction, and had a natural bias to their
Palestinian hereditary enemies, whom they afterwards called to their
assistance. And the Mosaic account also exactly agrees with this[211]:
“Let us deal wisely with them,” says Pharaoh, “lest they multiply, and it
come to pass that when there falleth out any war _they join also with
our enemies, and fight against us_.” Therefore, taskmasters were placed
over the land, and the people tormented with building and all kinds of
hard service, to which undoubtedly the working in the stone-quarries had
reference, which is made particularly prominent in the Egyptian relation.
The chief feature in both recitals is the design of oppression and
destruction, by means of exorbitant taskwork.
All accounts are also agreed upon the great number of the enemy, which
had grown up in the country, and even if only 280,000[212] had departed,
as the Egyptians related, while in the Hebrew accounts 600,000 are
mentioned, it was at any rate a great event, on which the Egyptian annals
could not possibly preserve silence.