_Egypt during the sojourn of the Israelites.—The travels of an
Egyptian officer through Palestine before the time of
Joshua.—Recent excavations at Tel el-Maskhûta.—Discovery of the
treasure-chambers built by the Israelites.—Date of the Exodus
fixed.—Origin of the word Jĕhovâh.—The rite of
circumcision.—Origin of the name Moses.—Illustrations of Hebrew
law and ritual from Phœnician and Assyrian monuments.—Tablet
describing the duties of a priest of Bel.—The sacrificial tariff
of Marseilles.—Phœnician texts found in Cyprus._
The expulsion of the Hyksos conquerors of Egypt, while it brought
oppression and slavery to their Semitic kindred who were left behind,
inaugurated an era of conquest and glory for the Egyptians themselves. The
war against the Asiatics which had begun in Egypt was carried into Asia,
and under Thothmes III and other great monarchs of the eighteenth dynasty
the Egyptian armies traversed Palestine and Syria, and penetrated as far
as the Euphrates. The tribes of Canaan paid tribute; the Amorites or
“hill-men” were led into captivity; and the combined armies of Hittites
and Phœnicians were defeated in the plain of Megiddo. On the temple-walls
of Karnak at Thebes, Thothmes III (B.C. 1600) gives a list of the
Canaanitish towns which had submitted to his arms. Among them we read the
names of Zarthan and Beroth, of Beth-Anoth and Gibeah, of Migdol and
Ophrah, of Taanach and Jibleam, of Shunem and Chinneroth, of Hazor and
Laish, of Merom and Kishon, of Abel and Sharon, of Joppa and Achzib, of
Beyrut and Accho, of Heshbon and Megiddo, of Hamath and Damascus. One of
the conquered places bears the curious name of Jacob-el, “Jacob the God,”
while mention is made of the Negeb, or “southern district,” which
afterwards formed part of the territory of Judah.
Two centuries later, when the troublous times which saw the close of the
eighteenth dynasty had ushered in the nineteenth, the same districts had
again to be overrun by the Egyptian kings. Once more victories were gained
over the powerful Hittites, in their fortress of Kadesh, on the Orontes,
and over the tribes of Palestine. Seti I, the father of Ramses II, records
among his conquests Beth-Anoth and Kirjath-Anab(4) in the south, as well
as Zor or Tyre. Ramses II himself, the Sesostris of the Greeks, battled
for long years against the Hittites on the plains of Canaan, and
established a line of Egyptian fortresses as far north as Damascus. The
tablets which he engraved at the mouth of the Dog River, near Beyrût,
still remain to testify to his victories and campaigns. Representations
were sculptured on the walls of Thebes of the forts of “Tabor, in the land
of the Amorites,” of Merom and of Salem; and the capture of the revolted
city of Ashkelon was celebrated both in sculpture and in song.
But the most interesting record which has come down to us from his reign
is the account given by a _mohar_, or military officer, of his travels
through Palestine, at a time when the country was nominally tributary to
Egypt. The _mohar_ made his tour during the latter part of the reign of
Ramses II, the oppressor of the Israelites, so that the account he has
given of Canaan shows us what it was like shortly before its conquest by
Joshua. He journeyed as far north as Aleppo in a chariot, which is more
than a traveller in Palestine could do now, and describes how his clothes
were stolen one night, and how his own groom, or “muleteer,” joined the
robbers. Among the places he visited were the Phœnician cities of Gebal,
famous for its shrine of Ashtoreth, Beyrût, Sarepta, Sidon, and Tyre,
which he says was built on an island in the sea, drinking-water being
conveyed to it in boats. Old Tyre, on the continent opposite, seems to
have been recently burnt. Hamath, Timnah, Hazor, Tabor, Horonaim, and
perhaps Adullam, were also visited, and mention is made not only of the
ford of the Jordan, near Beth-Shean, but also of “a passage” in front of
the city of Megiddo, which had to be crossed before the town could be
entered. Joppa, the modern Jaffa, was surrounded with gardens of
date-palms, which have now been supplanted by oranges. The road, however,
was not always good. In one place the _mohar_ had to “drive along the edge
of the precipice, on the slippery height, over a depth of 2,000 cubits,
full of rocks and boulders;” while at another time his groom broke the
chariot in pieces by driving over a slippery path, and necessitated the
repair of the injured carriage by “the iron-workers” at the nearest
smithy. Already, therefore, it is clear, Palestine possessed plenty of
smithies at which iron was forged.
That Ramses II was the Pharaoh of the oppression, has long been suspected
by Egyptian scholars. The accounts of the wars of himself and his
predecessors in Canaan show that up to the date of his death that country
was not yet inhabited by the Israelites. Not only is no mention made of
them, but the history of the Book of Judges precludes our supposing that
Palestine could have been an Egyptian province after the Israelitish
conquest. It must have ceased to be tributary to the Pharaohs before it
was entered by Joshua. Moreover, the name of the city of Ramses (Raamses)
built by the Israelites in Egypt points unmistakeably to the reign of the
great Ramses II himself. As has already been observed, the name was given
to Zoan after its reconstruction by this monarch, whose grandfather,
Ramses I, was the first Egyptian king who bore the name. As Ramses I
reigned but a very few years, while his successor, Seti I, associated his
son, Ramses II, with him on the throne when the latter was but twelve
years old or thereabouts, it could only have been during his long reign of
sixty-seven years that Ramses II brought the name by which he had been
christened into vogue. It is possible that those Egyptian scholars are
right who see the Hebrews in a certain class of foreigners called Aperiu,
and employed by Ramses II to work at his monuments; if so, we should have
another proof that the Exodus could not have taken place until after his
death. The identification, however, is rendered very doubtful by the fact,
that long after the time of Ramses II, a document of the reign of Ramses
III speaks of 2,083 Aperiu as settlers in Heliopolis, and describes them
as “knights, sons of the kings, and noble lords of the Aperiu, settled
people, who dwell in this place.” If, therefore, the Aperiu were really
the Hebrews, we should have to suppose that some of them who had obtained
offices of honour and influence in Egypt remained behind in Heliopolis,
the city of Joseph’s wife, when their poorer and oppressed kinsmen
followed Moses and Aaron into the desert in search of the Promised Land.
However this may be, the question as to the date of the Exodus, and
consequently as to the Pharaoh of the oppression, has now been finally set
at rest by the excavations recently undertaken at Tel el-Maskhûta. Tel
el-Maskhûta is the name of some large mounds near Tel el-Kebîr and other
places which were the scene of the late war; and M. Naville, who has
excavated them for the Egyptian Exploration Fund, has found inscriptions
in them which show not only that they represent an ancient city whose
religious name was Pithom, while its civil name was Succoth, but also that
the founder of the city was Ramses II. In Greek times the city was called
Heroöpolis, or Ero, from the Egyptian word _ara_, “a store-house,”
reminding us that Pithom and Raamses, which the Israelites built for the
Pharaoh, were “treasure-cities” (Exod. i. 11). M. Naville has even
discovered the treasure-chambers themselves. They are very strongly
constructed, and divided by brick partitions from eight to ten feet thick,
the bricks being sun-baked, and made some with and some without straw. In
these strawless bricks we may see the work of the oppressed people when
the order came: “Thus saith the Pharaoh, I will not give you straw.”
The treasure-chambers occupy almost the whole area of the old city, the
walls of which are about 650 feet square and 22 feet thick. Its name
Pithom—in Egyptian Pa-Tum—signifies the city of the Setting Sun; and since
it had another name, Succoth, we can now understand how it was that the
Israelites started on their march not from Goshen, but from Succoth (Ex.
xiii. 20), that is, from the very place where they had been working.
Etham, their next stage, seems to be the Egyptian fortress of Khetam,
while Pi-hahiroth (Ex. xiv. 2), is probably Pi-keheret, which is mentioned
in an inscription found at Tel el-Maskhûta as somewhere in the
neighbourhood of the canal that led from the Nile to the Red Sea.
The Pharaoh under whom the Exodus actually took place could not have been
Ramses II himself, but his son and successor, Meneptah II, who ascended
the throne about B.C. 1325. His reign lasted but a short time, and it was
disturbed not only by the flight of the Children of Israel, but also by a
great invasion of Northern Egypt by the Libyans, which was with difficulty
repulsed. This took place in his fifth year. Three years later a report
was sent to him by one of his officials stating that “the passage of
tribes of the Shasu (or Beduins) from the land of Edom had been effected
through the fortress of Khetam, which is situated in Succoth (Thuku), to
the lakes of the city of Pithom, which are in the land of Succoth, in
order that they might feed themselves and their herds on the possessions
of the Pharaoh.” The lakes of Pithom must be those of Bâlah and Timsah, on
which Ismailia now stands, not far from Tel el-Maskhûta, and Khetam is the
Etham of Scripture. It is possible that Timsah, “the lake of crocodiles,”
is the _yâm sûph_, or “sea of papyrus reeds,” of Scripture, which the
translators of the Septuagint erroneously identified with the Red Sea.
Among the incidents connected with the deliverance of the Israelites are
two which especially deserve notice. When God appointed Moses to his
mission of leading his enslaved brethren out of Egypt, He at the same time
revealed Himself by the name of “Jehovah,” the special name by which He
was henceforth to be known to the Children of Israel. It is unfortunate
that this sacred name has descended to the readers of the Authorised
Version of the Old Testament in a corrupt and barbarous form. The Hebrew
alphabet was designed to express consonants only, not vowels; these were
supplied by the reader from his knowledge of the language and its
pronunciation. As long as Hebrew was still spoken, there was little
difficulty in doing this; but the case was changed when it ceased to be a
living language. A traditional pronunciation of the sacred records was
preserved in the synagogues; but it necessarily differed in many respects
from the pronunciation which had actually been once in use, and was itself
in danger of being forgotten or altered. To avoid such a danger,
therefore, the so-called Masoretes, or Jewish scribes, in the sixth
century after the Christian era, invented a system of symbols which should
represent the pronunciation of the Hebrew of the Old Testament as read, or
rather chanted, at the time in the great synagogue of Tiberias in
Palestine.(5) It is in accordance with this Masoretic mode of
pronunciation that Hebrew is now taught. But there was one word which the
Masoretes of Tiberias either could not or would not pronounce. This was
the national name of the God of Israel. Though used so freely in the Old
Testament, it had come to be regarded with superstitious reverence before
the time when the Greek translation of the Septuagint was made, and in
this translation, accordingly, the word _Kyrios_, “Lord,” is substituted
for it wherever it occurs. The New Testament writers naturally followed
the custom of the Septuagint and of their age, and so also did the
Masoretes of Tiberias. Wherever the holy name was met with, they read in
place of it _Adônai_, “Lord,” and hence, when supplying vowel-symbols to
the text of the Old Testament they wrote the vowels of _Adônai_ under the
four consonants, Y H V H, which composed it. This simply meant that
_Adônai_ was to be read wherever the sacred name was found. In ignorance
of this fact, however, the scholars who first revived the study of Hebrew
in modern Europe imagined that the vowels of _Adônai_ (_ă_ or _ĕ_, _o_,
and _â_) were intended to be read along with the consonants below which
they stood. The result was the hybrid monster _Yĕhovâh_. In passing into
England the word became even more deformed. In German the sound of _y_ is
denoted by the symbol _j_, and the German symbol, but with the utterly
different English pronunciation attached to it, found its way into the
English translations of the Old Testament Scriptures.
There are two opinions as to what was the actual pronunciation of the
sacred name while Hebrew was still a spoken language. On the one hand, we
may gather from the contemporary Assyrian monuments that it was pronounced
_Yahu_. Wherever an Israelitish name is met with in the cuneiform
inscriptions which, like Jehu or Hezekiah, is compounded with the divine
title, the latter appears as _Yahu_, Jehu being _Yahua_, and Hezekiah
_Khazaki-yahu_. Even according to the Masoretes it must be read _Yeho_
(that is, _Yăhu_) when it forms part of a proper name. The early Gnostics,
moreover, when they transcribed it in Greek characters, wrote _Iaô_, that
is, _Yahô_. On the other hand, the four consonants, Y H V H, can hardly
have been pronounced otherwise than as _Yahveh_, and this pronunciation is
supported by the two Greek writers Theodoret and Epiphanios, who say that
the word was sounded _Yavé_. The form _Yahveh_, however, is incompatible
with the form _Yahu_ (_Yeho_), which appears in proper names; and it has
been maintained that it is due to one of those plays on words, of which
there are so many examples in the Old Testament. The spelling with a final
_h_ was adopted, it has been supposed, in order to remind the reader of
the Hebrew verb which signifies “to be,” and to which there seems to be a
distinct allusion in Exod. iii. 14.(6)
We must now turn to a second incident which is specially connected with
the deliverance out of Egypt. This is the rite of circumcision, which was
observed in so solemn a manner at the moment when the Israelites had at
last crossed the Jordan and were preparing to attack the Canaanites. It
was a rite which had been practised by the Egyptians from the most remote
times, and had been communicated by them, according to Herodotus, to the
Ethiopians. Josephus tells us that the rite was also practised by the
Arabs, to whom Herodotus adds the Syrians of Phœnicia, as well as the
Kolkhians and the Hittites of Kappadokia. A similar rite is found at the
present day among many barbarous tribes in different parts of the world,
and distinguishes not only the Jew but the Mohammedan as well.
The name of Moses seems to be of Egyptian derivation. It would correspond
to the Egyptian _mes_ or _mesu_, “son,” which is borne by more than one
Egyptian prince at the period of the Exodus, and forms part of the name of
Ramses, or Ra-mesu, “the son of the sun.” The Hebrew spelling of the word
with a final _h_ is designed to recall the Hebrew _mashâh_, “to draw out”
or “deliver,” just as the spelling of the Septuagint, Môysês, was
influenced by the etymology given by Josephus, which made it a compound of
the Egyptian _mô_, “water,” and _ysês_, “to rescue from a flood.” Such
plays upon words are common in ancient literature, and are still in favour
in the East, and we must be on our guard against ascribing to them a
scientific value which they do not possess. The name _mesu_, “son,” would
be an appropriate one for a child who had been adopted by an Egyptian
lady, and who was brought up at the court of the Pharaoh in “all the
wisdom of the Egyptians.”
This chapter would be incomplete unless something were said of the
illustrations of the law and ritual of the Israelites afforded by the
monuments of the nations around them. These illustrations are to be found
among the Phœnicians and the Assyrians. Among both we find traces of
sacrifices and institutions which offer many parallels to the ordinances
of the Mosaic Law. Besides the Sabbaths already spoken of, the Babylonians
and Assyrians had various festivals and fasts, on which certain rites had
to be performed and certain sacrifices offered; they knew of
“peace-offerings” and of “heave-offerings,” of the dedication of the
first-born, and of sacrifices for sin. The gods were carried in procession
in “ships,” which, as we learn from the sculptures, resembled in form the
Hebrew ark, and were borne on men’s shoulders by means of staves. In front
of the image of the god stood a table, on which showbread was laid; and a
distinction was drawn between the meal-offering and the animal sacrifice.
Certain unclean kinds of food were forbidden, including the flesh of swine
and “creeping things;” and in the outer courts of the temples were large
lavers called “seas,” like the “sea” of Solomon’s temple, in which the
worshippers were required to cleanse themselves. Many of these regulations
and rites came down from the Accadian period.
As a specimen of the rites which had to be performed, we may quote a
portion of a tablet which prescribes the duties of the priest in the great
temple of Bel at Babylon. The tablet begins: “In the month Nisan, on the
2nd day, two hours after nightfall, the priest must come and take of the
waters of the river, must enter into the presence of Bel, and change his
dress, must put on a ... robe in the presence of Bel, and say this prayer:
‘O my lord, who in his strength has no equal, O my lord, blessed
sovereign, lord of the world, speeding the peace of the great gods, the
lord who in his might destroys the strong, lord of kings, light of
mankind, establisher of trust, O Bel, thy sceptre is Babylon, thy crown is
Borsippa, the wide heaven is the dwelling-place of thy liver.... O lord of
the world, light of the spirits of heaven, utterer of blessings, who is
there whose mouth murmurs not of thy righteousness, or speaks not of thy
glory, and celebrates not thy dominion? O lord of the world, who dwellest
in the temple of the sun, reject not the hands that are raised to thee, be
merciful to thy city Babylon, to Beth-Saggil thy temple, incline thy face,
grant the prayers of thy people the sons of Babylon.’ ”
Our knowledge of the Phœnician ritual is largely derived from a
sacrificial tariff discovered at Marseilles in 1845. The stone on which it
is engraved is unfortunately not perfect, but what is left of it runs
thus: “In the temple of Baal (the following tariff of offerings shall be
observed), which was prescribed (in the time of) the judge ... Baal, the
son of Bod-Tanit, the son of Bod-(Ashmun, and in the time of Halzi-Baal),
the judge, the son of Bod-Ashmun, the son of Halzi-Baal and (their
comrades). For an ox as a full-offering, whether it be a prayer-offering
or a full thank-offering, the priests (shall receive) ten shekels of
silver for each beast, and if it be a full-offering the priests shall
receive besides this (300 shekels’ weight of flesh). And for a
prayer-offering they shall receive (besides) the small joints(?) and the
roast(?), but the skin and the haunches and the feet and the rest of the
flesh shall belong to the offerer. For a bullock which has horns, but is
not yet broken in and made to serve, or for a stag, as a full-offering,
whether it be a prayer-offering or a full thank-offering, the priests
(shall receive) five shekels of silver (for each beast, and if it be a
full-offering) they shall receive besides this 150 shekels’ weight of
flesh; and for a prayer-offering the small joints(?) and the roast(?); but
the skin and the haunches and the feet (and the rest of the flesh shall
belong to the offerer). For a sheep or a goat as a full-offering, whether
it be a prayer-offering or a full thank-offering, the priests (shall
receive) one shekel of silver and two _sar_ for each beast; and in the
case of a prayer-offering they shall have (besides this the small joints
(?)) and the roast(?); but the skin and the haunches and the feet and the
rest of the flesh shall belong to the offerer. For a lamb or a kid or a
fawn as a full-offering, whether it be a prayer-offering or a full
thank-offering, the priests (shall receive) three-fourths of a shekel of
silver and (two) _zar_ (for each beast; and in the case of a
prayer-offering they shall have) besides this the small joints(?) and the
roast(?); but the skin and the haunches and the feet and the rest of the
flesh shall belong to (the offerer). For a bird, whether wild or tame, as
a full-offering, whether it be _shetseph_ or _khazuth_, the priests (shall
receive) three-fourths of a shekel of silver and two _zar_ for each bird;
and (so much flesh besides). For a bird, or for the offering of the
first-born of an animal, or for a meal-offering or for an offering with
oil, the priests (shall receive) ten pieces of gold for each.... In the
case of every prayer-offering which is offered to the gods, the priests
shall receive the small joints(?), and the roast(?) and the
prayer-offering ... for a cake and for milk and for fat, and for every
offering which is offered without blood.... For every offering which is
brought by a poor man in cattle or birds, the priests shall receive
nothing ... anything leprous or scabby or lean is forbidden, and no one as
regards that which he offers (shall taste of) the blood of the dead. The
tariff for each offering shall be according to that which is prescribed in
this publication.... As for every offering which is not prescribed in this
table, and is not made according to the regulations which (have been
published in the time of ... Baal, the son of Bod-Tanit), and of
Bod-Ashmun, the son of Halzi-Baal, and of their comrades, every priest who
accepts the offering which is not included in that which is prescribed in
this table, shall be punished.... As for the property of the offerer who
does not discharge (his debt) for his offering (he also shall be
punished).”
The words that are wanting in the document have been partially supplied
from the fragments of another copy of the tariff found among the ruins of
Carthage. It will be observed that there is no mention in it of the
sacrifice of children, which, as we know, once played a large part in the
ritual of the Phœnicians. This is explained by the fact that the tariff
belongs to that later age, when Greek and Roman influence had prevailed
upon the Phœnician colonists in the west to give up the horrible practice.
The place of the child is taken by the _’ayyâl_ or stag.
The tariff of Marseilles and Carthage has lately been supplemented by some
Phœnician texts found in the island of Cyprus, and written in black and
red ink upon small pieces of marble. One of these has both faces
inscribed, and a translation of its contents is worth giving. On the first
face we read: “Expenses of the month Ethanim: On the new-moon of the month
Ethanim, for the gods of the new-moon two.... For the architects who have
built the temples of Ashtoreth, for each house.... For the guardians of
the sanctuary and the overseers of the temple of Resheph 20.... For the
men (who tend) the cattle in the presence of the Holy Queen on this
day.... For two boys two ... For two sacrifices ... For two bakers who
have baked the cakes for the (Holy) Queen.... For the barbers, for their
work, two.... For the ten masons who have built the foundations and the
temples of the Sun-god ... To Ebed-Ashmun, the principal scribe, who has
been sent on this day, three.... For the dogs and their young....” On the
other face we have: “On the new-moon of the month Peûlat: For the gods of
the new-moon two.... For the masters of the days, incense and
peace-offering.... For the images of the temple of the Sun-god and the
other gods.... For Ebed-Bast of Carthage.... For the man who has bought
the withered plants(?).... For the shepherds of the country two.... For
the _’almâth_ and the 22 _’alâmôth_, with a sacrifice.... For the dogs and
their young three....”
Here we evidently have an account of the payments disbursed by the priests
of a temple on particular days. Resheph was a title of the Sun-god, and M.
Clermont-Ganneau has pointed out that his name still survives in that of
Arsûf, a ruined town to the north of Jaffa. The cakes baked for Ashtoreth,
“the Holy Queen,” are the same as those which the Jewish men and women who
had fled to Egypt after the destruction of Jerusalem and the murder of
Gedaliah declared to Jeremiah that they would still continue to offer to
“the queen of heaven” (Jer. xliv. 19). What is meant by the “dogs” is best
explained by Deuteronomy xxiii. 18, while the barbers mentioned in the
text were required to shave the priests. Mention is also made of them in
the Assyrian inscriptions (see Lev. xix. 27, xxi. 5). The _’almâth_, or
“maiden”—a word which has acquired a special significance in the Christian
Church in consequence of its having been used in Isaiah’s prophecy of “the
Virgin” (Isa. vii. 14)—here seems to mean the chief singer attached to the
temple of Ashtoreth. The _’alâmôth_ are described in the sixty-eighth
Psalm (ver. 25) as similarly employed in the worship of Israel. As for the
“Masters of the Days,” they are the gods who, as among the Assyrians, were
believed to preside over the months of the year. The month Ethanim, to
which the first account refers, is mentioned, it will be remembered, in 1
Kings viii. 2, as being the month in which the feast of the dedication of
Solomon’s temple was held. That temple had been built with the help of
Phœnician workmen, and it was therefore natural that the names of the
Phœnician months should have become known to the Israelites in connection
with it. The Israelites themselves were still contented to speak of the
months of the year according to the order in which they came. It was not
until after the return from the Babylonish exile that special names for
the months were definitely adopted, and that the Jews henceforth called
them by the Assyrian names they had heard in Babylonia.