ROD NOT EMPLOYED IN SPITE OF CLOSE INTERCOURSE WITH EGYPT—REASONS
SUGGESTED FOR ABSENCE
The absence of any mention of Angling in Israel, and in Assyria causes
wonder and surprise, especially when we remember that the relations of
both nations in trade and intercourse with Egypt, where Rod fishing did
obtain, appear when at peace constant and close.[998]
In the Assyrian chapter the vexed question of the earliest date
assignable for the invasion or cultural permeation of Egypt by Sumerian
or Semitic influences has been considered, and the conflicting views
stated.
A fair consensus of agreement holds that the Hyksos sprang from Semitic
stock; but the dates suggested for their conquest of Egypt vary from
2540 down to 1845 B.C.[999]
However this may be, the definite association with Egypt of that branch
of the Semitic tribes destined in Jacob’s lifetime (Gen. xlvii. 27) to
be known as Israelites,[1000] begins with the advent of Abram into that
country.
King, Rogers, and Jastrow in their later works have seemingly adopted
the date arrived at by Kugler from stellar researches for the first
Babylonian Dynasty. If Abram were, as is now thought, the contemporary
of Hammurabi, his flitting must have occurred between 2120 and 2080
B.C., but since Egyptian chronology beyond the fifteenth century
is fluid, and no early positive synchronisms with Babylon survive,
we cannot definitely designate any particular king in Egypt as the
contemporary of either Hammurabi or Abram.
The Bible is our main authority for the continuance of the association.
The stories of Jacob, of Joseph (in whose title _Abrek_[1001]
some detect a Babylonian influence and a connection with that of
_Abara-rakku_, the designation of one of the five great officers of
state), and of Moses, are but episodes of an intercourse which, if we
begin with Abram and end with Onias, lasted (with intervals of war and
invasion) for some 2000 years.
Evidence of intercourse crops up again and again throughout the four
centuries of the Jewish Monarchy. Thus we read (1 Kings iii. 1) of the
marriage of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh. From Solomon’s reign
onward till the birth of Christ and long afterwards, the connection
between Egypt and Israel, friendly or hostile, never fails. The flight
of Jeroboam to Shishak (1 Kings xi. 40) and the giving of presents,
probably tribute, by Hosea to the King of Egypt (2 Kings xvii. 4)
present but two instances.
_Papyri_ recently discovered prove the settlement near Assouan of a
considerable Jewish, or rather, more correctly, Palestinian colony
from (say) 500-400 B.C. This, like the similar but older community
at Tahpanhes, exhibits a mart of wide and keen trading. The _papyri_
“show that the Aramaic—the common language of Syria—was regularly used
at Syene (Assouan), and we readily see how five cities in the land of
Egypt speak the language of Canaan and swear to Yahweh of Hosts (Isaiah
xix. 18) as the oath in these papyri is by Yahu.”[1002]
[Illustration: A PRE-INCA FISHING SCENE. (_c._ 200 B.C.)
Reproduced from T. A. Joyce’s _South American Archæology_.]
After the destruction of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes, the petition
by Onias to Ptolemy Philometor for permission to erect a central temple
for the benefit of the many thousands of his compatriots resident
in Egypt concludes the historical evidence that I call as to the
continuance of the Egyptian-Israelitish connection. Its survival for
centuries after the birth of our Lord is a matter of common knowledge.
The existence of this connection rests not merely on historical
evidence. Recent excavations in Southern Palestine tell the same tale,
or even carry it still farther back, to pre-Israelite Canaan. Thus,
after referring to the tale of Sinuhé (_c._ 1970 B.C.), Professor G.
Barton writes, “There was apparently considerable trade with Egypt
at this time. Men from Palestine often went there for this purpose.
Such traders are pictured in an Egyptian tomb of this period. Trade
with Egypt is also shown to have existed by the discovery of Egyptian
scarabs of the time of the Middle Kingdom in the excavations at Gaza,
Jericho, and Megiddo. As Egypt was nearer, and commerce with it
easier, its art affects the arts of Palestine more than the art of
Babylon.”[1003]
R. A. Macalister[1004] writes: “Meanwhile the oldest foreign
civilisation of whose influence definite relics have come to light
within the land of Palestine is that of Egypt under the XIIth Dynasty.”
The assertion that “almost every spadeful of earth which is turned
over in Southern Palestine brings to light more evidence of Egyptian
influence” seems hardly an exaggeration.[1005]
But, it may be asked, what has all this got to do with fishing? Of
itself and in itself apparently nothing.
The introduction, however, of the historical facts cannot be branded
as irrelevant. They demonstrate a constant association for over two
millenniums with Egypt, and the deep influence of Egyptian civilisation
and methods of life on Jewish policy.
And yet, notwithstanding such intercourse and such cultural influence,
we can nowhere in the literature of the Bible or of the Rabbis discern
either a direct mention, or (as I hope to show) an implied allusion to
the use of the Rod, which as a weapon both for market and sport from
_c._ 2000 B.C. found favour in Egypt.[1006]
The same holds true of the Land of the Two Rivers; in no Assyrian
sculpture, on no Assyrian seal, can we detect any delineation or any
suggestion of angling, although instances of other kinds of fishing
occur frequently.[1007]
In no book of the Old or of the New Testament can be found any
direct mention of the Rod. In the Talmud—a vast work of teaching and
discussion—the same silence prevails. The authoritative _Talmudische
Archäologie_ (by S. Krauss, 1910) gives us fishful places such as Lake
Tiberias, and many points of ichthyic or piscatorial interest such as
the hook, the line, salted fish, garum, etc., but contains no reference
to the Rod.[1008] Mr. Breslar, it is true, has recently girded up his
loins to establish that in the Bible and the Talmud can be found at
any rate the _implied_ use of the Rod, but to a practical angler quite
unconvincingly.[1009]
To account for this absence of direct mention of the Rod in the Bible
various reasons have been adduced.
The first: in the only two passages, Isaiah xix. 8, and Habakkuk i. 15,
where the word “angle” occurs, and in Matthew xvii. 27, “cast a hook,”
and in Amos iv. 2, as contended by Mr. Breslar, its use is certainly
implied. The validity of this claim remains a question (A) for Hebrew
scholars, and (B) for practical fishermen.
From the point of view of the latter, the “casting,” “taking,” etc., in
the above passages can be and probably were accomplished by a hand-line
(with or without a weight attached to insure greater length of throw)
almost as easily and as effectually as if a Rod were employed. As a
matter of fact, for taking good-sized fish some of our professional
sea-fishermen prefer the hand-line to that of the Rod.
The words in Matthew xvii. 27, “go thou to the sea and cast a hook”
do not either in the Greek or English strongly suggest, much less
necessarily imply, a Rod. To a professional fisherman of the Sea of
Tiberias like Peter, the more natural, probably the only known method
of casting would be by a hand-line.
Turning now to the Hebrew passages, Isaiah xix. 8, “The fishers shall
also lament, and all they that cast angle in the Nile (A.V., brooks)
shall mourn;” Habakkuk i. 15, “He taketh up all of them with the angle,
he catcheth them in his net, and gathereth them in his drag;” Job xli.
1, “Canst thou draw out leviathan with a fish-hook?” in all these we
find the same Hebrew word _ḥakkāh_.
The R.V. in the first two renders it “angle,” and in Job “fish-hook;”
in the Greek version ἄγκιστρον, which in the Septuagint is the usual
and in the New Testament (Matt. xvii. 27) the only word for hook,
occurs in all three passages.
Whence or from which word can the Rod be implied, or even in fairness
claimed? In Isaiah, it is answered, from the words “cast in the Nile.”
But in a river, as every child knows, fishing is pursued by more
methods than that of the Rod. Judging from the literature of our six
Nations fishing by hand-line was far and away more general than by Rod;
the ratio between the two would indeed, I think, work out at some 100
to 1.
If then the words, “cast in the Nile,” do not furnish the implication
claimed, can we find any other words in the three passages which do?
The one word common to them all is _ḥakkāh_, hook: if this fail the
claimants, how or whence can they establish the implication?
Let us now see whither the implication from _ḥakkāh_ leads us.
Obviously in Job, to _angling with a Rod_ for “Leviathan” or
crocodile![1010] The absurdity is already manifest. Let us, however, in
our hunt for the snark-like implication examine the remaining tackle of
this intrepid angler. Fortunately for us, conjecture as to the hook or
the bait is unnecessary.
The Petrie collection at the University of London preserves a hook,
which in Ptolemaic times was employed in the Nile for the capture—not
of crocodiles—but merely of large fish, such as _Lates niloticus_. It
measures over one foot in length, with a shank over 2½ inches in width.
The account of crocodile fishing by the Egyptians left us by
Herodotus[1011] prescribes the bait—no less an one than a chine of
pork. The line, then and now (_ex necessitate rei_), must have been
of stout cord, possibly tied to a tree, with probably some protective
material of horn, etc., to prevent erosion.
Conjure up the picture of this Egyptian _piscator_—even in this
instance the _Jew_ does not use the Rod, for there are no Leviathans
in Palestine![1012] Behold him “casting,” with a Rod of ancient normal
length, about six feet, with a rope line of ancient normal length, from
six to ten feet, a bait of even half the back of a porker! Surely a
picture for gods and men, more especially the winners of our Casting
Competitions, to revere with awe and envy, as a feat of strength and
skill unessayable.
From these three passages I can find no reason, contextual or
piscatorial, to support the contention that the Rod was used, although
to us moderns such use would seem but the natural thing.
Mr. Breslar maintains that Amos iv. 2 authorises the implication. He
errs either in translation or through misconception of the tackle
described. The words run, “They shall take you away with hooks
(_ẓinnōth_), and your residue with fish-hooks.” The Hebrew word for
the second, _ṣīrōth dūgāh_, means only hooks, plain and simple, while
that for the first, _ẓinnōth_, signifies also thorns and probably
fish-spears, or harpoons.
Amos, however, far from thinking of or suggesting a Rod, is looking
contrariwise at the end of a line. His metaphor is drawn from the
non-angling custom prevalent and pictured in Assyrian representations
of a conqueror having his captives dragged by cords fastened by
presumable, but naturally not apparent, hooks firm fixed in their
lips. This conception is strengthened by the fact that _ḥakkāh_ in its
primary etymological sense implies merely something connected with the
jaws.[1013]
If Mr. Breslar surmises (though his words convey no such hint) that
for his “rudimentary type of Rod in the Scriptures” Israel affixed a
line to his fishing spear, thus squaring with my conjecture in the
Introduction as to the evolution of the modern Rod, may I respectfully
ask why did a race, so pre-eminently alert and proverbially
acquisitive, handicap itself by the selection of such a “rudimentary
type” in preference to a weapon long invented, ready to hand, and far
superior?
A friend, in the hope of helping me to some authoritative information
as regards Angling, suggested _Jagd, Fischfang, und Bienenzucht bei den
Juden in der tannäischen Zeit_, by Herr Moritz Mainzer, as the very
last word on Jewish fishing. Unable (owing to the War) to obtain this
in book form, I tracked it eventually to some articles under the same
title in the magazine, _Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft
des Judentums_ (1909). Except for a pearl or two such as “Fishermen,
then as now in Palestine, worked lightly dressed or naked,”—was this
suggested by St. John, or P. Fletcher’s, “Now when Simon heard, he girt
his fisher’s coat unto him, for he was naked”?—_Fischfang_ (at any
rate) far from rewards one’s search.
Mainzer’s two sentences (p. 463) assist not at all in determining
whether or not the Jews used the Rod. “Die eigentliche _ḥakkāh_ war ein
eiserner an eine Leine (_ḥebhel_) befestigter Haken. Die Leine selbst
konnte mit einer Rute oder einem Stabe verbunden sein der zuweilen
mehrere Schnüre mit Angeln trug” (the _ḥakkāh_ proper was an iron hook
fastened to a fishing _ḥebhel_. This line might be attached to a rod or
stick, which sometimes had on it several cords with fishing hooks).
The supporting references come from no Israelitish source, but from
Assyrian representations of hand-lining in Layard’s _Nineveh_, and
from Egyptian delineations of Rod fishing in Wilkinson’s _Ancient
Egyptians_. Not a single word does Mainzer quote from any authority on
Jewish Angling. The words, “to a Rod which sometimes had on it several
cords with fishing hooks,” simply translate Wilkinson’s Plate 371.
Had I weighed the title and duly appreciated the combination of
_Hunting_, _Fishing_, and _Bee-culture_! I would have been perhaps
prepared for a disappointment, but the output of, or the “cultural
associations” in, a German work often defy prediction from its mere
headings. Mainzer, in his _Fischfang_, serves to recall Porson’s lines,
which are themselves but an adaptation of a Greek epigram,[1014]
“The Germans in Greek
Are sadly to seek,
Not five in five score
But ninety-five more.
All save only Hermann,
And Hermann’s a German!”
Lest my own conclusion—that neither in the Old or New Testament is the
implied use of the Rod established—carry little weight, I subjoin the
conclusions (stated in letters to me) arrived at by two well-known
Hebrew scholars.
The first comes from Professor A. R. S. Kennedy (the writer of the
article on Fishing in the _Encyclopædia Biblica_): “In short you are
entirely justified, so far as evidence goes, in saying that the Jews
did not use the Rod.”
The second comes from Dr. St. Clair Tisdall: “We find in the Bible no
proof of fishing with _Rod_ and line: on the contrary the fact that no
mention whatever, direct or indirect, of the fishing Rod occurs either
in the Bible or (as far as my reading goes) in the Talmud, makes it
almost certain that the Rod was not used by the Jews. At any rate the
use of any such instrument is not implied in either Book.”
A second reason for the absence of the Rod may be that of dates. The
Jews, it might be urged, were not and could not be aware of Egyptian
Angling, because it sprang up subsequent to their Exodus from the
country. The reply I offer involves, it is true, that bewildering
factor, Egyptian chronology. But even if a thousand years are as
nothing in the sight of Manetho and many others, surely one epoch
correlates with another, and the shifting of one date automatically
involves the shifting of others.
The date of the Exodus, like most Egyptian dates, hitherto a matter of
considerable contention, is now generally agreed as falling between
1300 and 1200 B.C. Petrie[1015] fixes on “1220 B.C. or possibly rather
later,” Hanbury Brown places the Flight ten years earlier, _i.e._ 1230,
for reasons based mainly on the _stele_ of King Menephtah.[1016]
So if the contention that the Israelites could not well know of the
Rod because of its invention after their flight holds water, any
representation of Rod fishing must obviously be subsequent to the
year 1230 or 1220 B.C. Only two such representations exist: (A) (in
Wilkinson’s Plate 370) comes from the tomb (No. 93) of Kenamūm at
Thebes, and dates from about the second half of the XVIIIth Dynasty, or
some 200 years before the Exodus, while (B) (in Wilkinson’s Plate 371,
and in Newberry’s _Beni Hasan_, vol. I. Plate XXIX.) goes back to the
early XIIth Dynasty or some 750 years before the Exodus.[1017]
The Exodus, whatever date be assigned, probably occurred in the time
of and was occasioned by a dynasty non-Semitic, and unfavourable to
Israel. The _corvée_ enforced doubtless by the kourbash was exacted
from the aliens, whose task (Exodus i. 11) included the building of two
brick fortresses to block the eastern road into Egypt.
To most of us unacquainted with the making of bricks the cruelty of
the Pharaonic command, “There shall be no straw given you, yet shall
ye deliver the tale of bricks,” seems to consist in demanding from
the sojourners the same quantity of output without their possessing,
as the Egyptian workers did possess, an essential constituent in the
brick-straw.
But Petrie points out that straw, so far from being an essential of the
mixture, is absent from most ancient and modern bricks. The complaint
arose because finely chopped straw is very useful for preventing the
mud from sticking to the hand, for dusting over the ground, and for
coating each lump before dropping it in the mould, thus enabling the
work to go on quickly and easily. From the strawless Jew, however,
was extorted for the same hours a tale of bricks equal to that of the
Egyptian enjoying these advantages.
In direct opposition to Petrie, Maspero states, and Erman[1018] agrees,
that the ordinary Egyptian brick, both ancient and modern, is “a mere
block of mud, mixed with chopped straw and a little sand.”
Other reasons for the Jewish unfamiliarity with the Rod, viz. its
merely local use, and their settlement in the North East of Egypt
remote from “the River of Egypt,” would fully be met, were it not for
Isaiah, with the simple statement that at present they can neither be
proved nor disproved.
But the words of Isaiah xix. 8, “The fishers also shall lament, and all
they that cast angle into the Nile shall mourn,” surely demonstrate—if
we allow that “cast angle” is the proper technical translation, and
that the two words cannot mean the mere throwing of a hook with a
hand-line—that the Israelites during the 430 years (Exodus xii. 40)
of their sojourn in Egypt did acquire familiarity with the methods of
fishing employed by their taskmasters.
Still, even if we take it as proved that for some reason Angling was
at the time of the Exodus an unknown art to the Jews, why with all
the intercourse of the subsequent centuries was the knowledge of the
existence and value of the Rod not acquired?[1019]
Those and other queries may have found a ready reply in the reputed but
lost Book of Solomon on Fishes.[1020] It may possibly have contained
some clue, such as a command or custom, totemistic or other, common
to the old Semitic stock, or some trait of temperament which caused
Angling to be regarded as too slow or too unremunerative a pastime.
Without its guidance one is almost driven to the conclusion that the
ancient Israelites (like the early Greeks and Romans) were pot-hunters,
bent on the spoil rather than on the sport of their catch, but (unlike
them) continued this characteristic throughout their history, and
remained to the end uninfected by the joy or passion of Angling. Their
desire was fish—abundant and cheap, or better still _gratis_: hence
when “fed up” with Manna (Numbers xi. 5) they fell a-lusting—“Who shall
give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish we did eat in Egypt for
nought.”
This apparent lack of the sporting instinct contrasts strangely with
the fact that modern Jews rank among our foremost anglers, and that to
a Jew we owe the greatest book written within the last generation, if
not the practical establishment on a scientific basis of the dry-fly,
that most finished form of Angling.
Dr. Kennet, Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, while holding no brief
either way, has, at my request, most kindly suggested some reasons
which may conceivably account for the Biblical absence of Angling. To
my mind none of these affords adequate proof of its existence.
A. The physical characteristics of the country preclude many references
to fishing in the Old Testament. However keen their desire, the
majority of the population were in the position of Simple Simon,
when he “went a-fishing for to catch a whale.” Sea-fishing was out
of the question, for with the doubtful exception of a small bit of
the Galilæan coast—probably not held continuously—no part of the
Mediterranean sea-shore belonged to Israel during the Monarchy, while
the climate and intense heat of the Valley of the Jordan, the only real
river, kept its inhabitants apart from the dwellers on the mountains.
But _contra_: even if the majority were Simple Simons, the numerous
references (about 74) in the Bible to fishes, fishing, and fishing
implements indicate a wide, if perhaps impersonal, knowledge of the
practice. The fact that the larger number of these were used as
metaphors or similes evidences a more than local knowledge of fishing,
because for a metaphor or simile to be telling it usually must, as
do the Homeric, appeal to a well-known, common, and long-established
custom or craft.
B. Although fishing apparently prevailed always in the Sea of Galilee,
it must be remembered that practically the whole literature of the Old
Testament emanates from central and southern Palestine, and (as is the
case with Egyptian literature as regards Deltaic conditions) contains
but scant allusion to life among the Northern Tribes. Hence possibly
the silence about the Rod, which may nevertheless have been employed.
C. The Old Testament stories, although some belong to the same period
as the Homeric, are told in a manner very different from the latter.
Every picture is sketched with the fewest strokes, and accordingly
details are, have to be, taken for granted. Thus, although the majority
of the people subsisted largely on milk, there is not one reference to
_milking_.
But _contra_: this omission seems to me hardly on all fours with that
of the Rod. The word _milk_, when not expressly limited, _e.g._ “of thy
bosom,” or used metaphorically, signifies solely the lacteal liquid
extruded from the teats of an animal, and so implies _milking_ or a
previous act of extrusion, whereas the word _fishing_ connotes no
single method of taking _fish_, as the Old Testament in its mention
of the implements, Spear, Hook and Line, and Nets, demonstrates. Then
again Job xxi. 24 (R.V. margin), “his milk-pails are full of milk,”
and Judges iv. 19, “she opened a bottle of milk,” both demand an
extrusion effected by one and only one method, whereas “jars of fish”
may have been filled by any piscatorial method.
D. There is no evidence that the Israelites brought from Egypt a single
particle of Egyptian civilisation. Nomads they were when they entered,
and nomads they were when they left Egypt. Their _kultur_ was taken
over from the Canaanites, and their later civilisation, despite periods
of subjection to Egypt, owed far less to that country than to Babylonia.
Even if we grant that no actual evidence of Egyptian culture exists,
the probabilities incline the other way. Their abiding place was in no
sterile or out-of-the-way corner of that country, but in Goshen, where
we read “they gat them possessions therein,” and was in close proximity
to the great high road, which bore the commerce between Egypt and Asia,
and _vice versâ_. They were certainly familiar with the manufacture of
bricks, and presumably the building of houses, etc.
E. The verse, “The fishers shall also lament and they that cast angle
in the brooks shall mourn,” which _may_ betray knowledge of the Rod, is
apparently much later than Isaiah, and may, perhaps, be assigned to the
second century B.C., and refer to the campaign of Antiochus Epiphanes
in Egypt.
Even if we allow that this date accounts for all omission of Angling
during the millennium between the Exodus and this campaign, why
is there no actual or implied reference in subsequent literature,
especially in the voluminous Talmud?
But the Jewish lack of sport is evidenced not only in their methods
of fishing, but, what is more remarkable, in those of their hunting,
or rather non-hunting. While Assyrian, Egyptian, and Persian Monarchs
were famous for their hunting exploits, no single Jewish king, except
Herod, is handed down to us delighting in or even taking part in the
chase.[1021]
We find no Hebrew counterpart to Tiglath-Pileser, with his historical
bag of “4 wild bulls mighty and terrible, 10 elephants and 120 lions”
on foot, and 130 speared from his chariot, or even of a mild understudy
to Ashur-bani-pal.[1022] The Bible gives but two—Esau’s brother
scarcely ranks as one—hunter-characters: Esau “a cunning hunter,” and
Nimrod “a mighty hunter before the Lord.” Even the latter of these two
heroes was no Israelite, but a king “of Accad,” a Sumero-Assyrian, whom
some writers identify with Gilgamesh.
Such indifference to or aversion from the chase cannot either at the
time of the invasion of Palestine (Exodus xxiii. 29), or subsequently
be ascribed to the lack of wild beasts or of game, for we read of
lions, bears, jackals, foxes, etc., and of hart, fallow deer, and
antelope.
Two reasons—neither, to my mind, satisfactory—have been advanced to
explain this attitude as regards hunting, a pursuit which admittedly
has played, both as a necessity and a pastime, an important part in the
education and evolution of mankind.
The first: the Hebrews, as described in the Old Testament, had already
reached the stage of pastoral nomads, when “hunting, which is the
subsistence of the ruder wanderer, has come to be only an extra means
of life.”[1023]
The second: the Hebrews, hampered perhaps by certain peculiarities of
their religion, or on account of the density of the population were not
often induced “to revert for amusement to what their ancestors had been
compelled to practise from necessity.”[1024]
Either, or both, of these reasons might have carried weight, had it
not been for the existence hard by in Assyria of a people, among whom,
although sprung from the Semitic stock, hunting was a recognised and
popular pastime, and this despite a population far denser.
Nor, again, when we compare the culture of the two nations, can
Lacépède’s previously quoted dictum that in civilisation the fisher
nation is usually more advanced than the hunter nation help the
Hebrews, for apart from the fact of the indisputable and immeasurable
superiority of the Assyrian civilisation we discover no sign of angling
in Israel.
As in their fishing, they were “out for” the meat, not for the sport,
so was it, I fear, in their hunting. If they found no pleasure in
the chase, they assuredly delighted in the eating of game and were
dexterous trappers of animals. Their methods were:—
(_a_) By digging a pitfall for the larger animals,
_e.g._ for a lion in 2 Sam. xxiii. 20;
(_b_) By traps, which were set in the runs of the animals
(Prov. xxii. 5) and caught them by the leg (Job xviii. 9),
or were set underground (_ibid._ 10); and
(_c_) By nets of various kinds—for an antelope in Isaiah
(li. 20, R.V.).
FOOTNOTES:
[997] Throughout my pages the words, Jews and Jewish, are generally
used in the popular sense, and not as merely signifying members of the
tribe of Judah. To my friend Dr. A. R. S. Kennedy, Professor of Hebrew
at Edinburgh University, my thanks are due for advice and for reading
the proof-sheets of my section on the Jews.
[998] In this chapter the word Assyrian generally stands for Sumerian,
Babylonian, and Assyrian proper.
[999] Remains of the Hyksos kings are far-scattered; _e.g._ an
alabaster vase-lid of very fine work, bearing the name of Khian, was
discovered in the palace of Cnossos in Crete, while a granite lion
bearing the king’s cartouche on his breast, unearthed many years ago at
Bagdad, is to be seen in the British Museum. J. H. Breasted, _History
of Egypt_, p. 218 (London, 1906).
[1000] The verse is not conclusive that they were called Israelites
during their sojourn in Goshen. The name used by the older sources is
Ibrim, probably identical with the Egyptian word Aperu or Apriu.
[1001] This is probably a shortening of the Sumero-Babylonian
_Abara-rakku_, equalling seer. H. de Genouillac was the first to
connect the word with the Hebrew _Abrek_, in his _Tablettes Sumériennes
Archaiques_.
[1002] See p. 94, Flinders Petrie, _Israel and Egypt_, of which in this
section I frequently avail myself. Inscriptions of _c._ XXVIth Dynasty,
or _c._ 600 B.C. disclose that there was an actual priesthood dedicated
to the god YHW, which word is clearly spelt out.
[1003] _Archæology and the Bible_, p. 109 (London, 1916).
[1004] _The Civilisation of Palestine_, p. 33.
[1005] _The Biblical World_, Feb., 1910, p. 105. _Inscriptions of
Sinai_ (published in 1913 by the Egypt Exploration Fund) furnish much
evidence as regards the intercourse between Egypt and Israel. For the
trade between Solomon and Egypt, see 1 Kings x. 28, etc.
[1006] See Plates 370 and 371 in Wilkinson, and _antea_, p. 314.
[1007] See _antea_, pp. 355-9.
[1008] In Singer, _Jewish Ency._, V. p. 404. “Fishing implements
such as hook and line, sometimes secured on shore to need no further
attention (_Shab._ 18A), and nets of various constructions” are
practically all that are given.
[1009] After acknowledging (_Notes and Queries_, Dec. 2, 1916) that
there is no mention in either Old or New Testament of a Rod, Mr.
Breslar goes on, “Yet there are places such as Job xl. 31 (xli. 7)
where the Hebrew words are translated barbed irons and fish spears, and
in Job xl. 26 (xli. 2) a thorn. A fishing-rod in the modern sense no
one could reasonably demand, though I opine that in _agmoun_ (Isaiah
lviii. 5), used in that sense in Job xl. 26, we have the nucleus of
one.” Mr. Breslar is evidently not aware or does not realise that fish
spears, bidents, etc., were of the earliest weapons of fishing, long
anterior to the Rod, and that these are the weapons referred to in Job.
A reference to the _Jewish Encyclopædia_ edited by Isidore Singer,
would have shown him that _ẓilẓal dagim_ in Job xli. 7 was in all
probability a harpoon. Then, “that this phrase (_Klei metzooda_) or a
similar one is not found in the Bible is merely an accidental omission
like, I believe, that of the name of Jehovah from the Book of Esther.”
This is hardly helpful: let us grant that the omission of a name from
a short book like Esther was an accident. How can this be “like”
the omission of all mention of or allusion to the Rod in the vast
literature of the Old and New Testaments and of the Talmud, especially
when we find in all three numerous passages dealing with fishing and
the tackle employed for fishing?
[1010] At the beginning of the world (Buddha tells the Monk of
Jetavana) all the fishes chose Leviathan for their King. No hint
as to what fish this Leviathan represented is given us: but the
Leviathan conceived by the Talmudists seems to have been an indefinable
sea-monster, of which the female lay coiled round the earth till God,
fearing that her progeny might destroy the new globe, killed her and
salted her flesh and put it away for the banquet which at the end
awaits the pious of the earth. On that day Gabriel will kill the male
also, and make a tent out of his skin for the Elect who are bidden
to the banquet (Robinson, _op. cit._, p. 8). As Robinson is somewhat
misleading, especially as regards the word Leviathan, I give the story
as told by Buddha with reference to Anqulimāta from _Jātaka_, nv. 537,
vol. V. p. 462. A certain king had been a Yakkha, and still wanted to
eat human flesh. His commander-in-chief tells him a tale to warn him.
“Once upon a time there were great fishes in the Ocean. One of them,
Ānanda, was made king of all the fish, ate the other fish, and finally
ate his own tail thinking it was a fish. The remaining fish smelling
blood, devoured Ānanda’s tail until they reached his head, and all
that was left of Ānanda was a heap of bones.” Leviathan is a gloss of
Robinson’s, because the only word in the text which could in any degree
correspond to Leviathan is _Mahā Maccho_ = great fish. For the election
of a King of fish, see also the _Naĉĉa Jātaka_, and _the Ubrīda Jātaka_.
[1011] Bk. II. 70.
[1012] See, however, an article in _The Spectator_, Feb. 14, 1920,
which asserts that the existence of crocodiles in the Nahr-ez-Zerka,
or the River of Crocodiles of the Crusaders, cannot be questioned,
and also H. B. Tristram, _Land of Israel_ (London, 1865), p. 103, to
similar but unconvincing effect.
[1013] Cf. Isaiah xxxvii. 29, “Therefore will I put my hook (_ḥoḥ_) in
thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips,” and 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11, “Which
ook Manasseh with hooks” (R.V. margin).
[1014] In a letter to A. Dalziel, Sept. 3, 1803, Porson states that
these lines were an effort made to English an epigram by an Etonian
friend, in imitation of Phocylides’s saw (Strabo, X. p. 487):
καὶ τόδε φωκυλίδου. Λέριοι κακοί, οὐχ ὁ μέν, ὃς δ’ οὔ,
πάντες, πλὴν Προκλέους· καὶ Προκλέης Λέριος.
[1015] _Op. cit._, p. 53.
[1016] The inscription mentions the existing conditions of foreign
affairs with neighbouring countries as satisfactory. It is in this
connection that the “people of Israel” come in. Their Exodus, according
to Pharaonic fashion, would have been described by the King as an
expulsion and not as an escape against his will. The author of the
inscription, who wrote from a point of view which was not that of the
Biblical account, seems not unsupported by Exodus xii. 39, “Because
they were thrust out of Egypt and could not tarry.” Even stronger is
the Revised Version marginal rendering in Exodus xi. 1, “When he shall
let you go altogether, he shall utterly thrust you out hence.” Sir
Hanbury Brown, _Journal of Egyptian Archæology_ (Jan. 1917), p. 19.
[1017] In connection with, perhaps even helping to fix, the date of the
Exodus, it is in the victorious hymn of Menephtah that the earliest
written reference to Israel appears: “Israel is desolated: her seed is
not. Palestine has become a (defenceless) widow of Egypt” (Breasted),
or “The Israelites are swept off: his seed is no more” (Naville).
Petrie’s translation, “The people of Israel is spoiled: it has no corn
(or seed),” does not for various reasons seem to find favour. The
majority of Egyptologists now identify Aahmes I. with the “new king who
knew not Joseph,” _c._ (1582), Rameses II. as the first Pharaoh of the
Oppression, and of Exodus ii. 15 (_c._ 1300), and Menephtah the son of
Rameses II. with the Pharaoh of the Plagues and the Flight from Egypt
(_c._ 1234).
[1018] _Egyptian Archæology_ (1902), 3-4. Erman, _op. cit._, 417. The
English translators state that the bricks were usually unburnt and
mixed with short pieces of straw.
[1019] If the Egyptian Rod was unknown, “the Egyptian fish (probably
salted) that came in baskets” were regularly imported. _Mishna
Makhshirin_, VI. 3.
[1020] See 1 Kings iv. 33, “And he spake also of beasts, and of fowl,
and of creeping things, and of _fishes_.” Some authorities hold that
this mention of Solomon’s natural history researches is quite late, and
meant to be a set off against Aristotle’s.
[1021] Herod seems, from notices in Josephus, to have been quite a
sportsman, for he kept a regular stud (_Ant._, XVI. 10, s. 3), and
hunted bears, stags, wild asses, etc., with a record bag of forty head
in one day (_ibid._, XV. 7, s. 7; and _B. J._, I. 21, s. 13).
[1022] It is fair to record that some of the Assyrian monarchs
preferred a battle mid safer surroundings, for in representations the
head keepers are seen letting the lions, etc., out of cages for their
royal master to pot! Parks (παράδεισοι) and districts were strictly
preserved by both Assyrian and Persian rulers; in England for several
reigns the penalty for poaching in the New and other Royal Forests was
death.
[1023] E. B. Tylor, _Anthropology_ (London, 1881), p. 220.
[1024] M. G. Watkins, _Gleanings from Natural History_ (London, 1885),
ch. 10.