Page images
PDF
EPUB

ESSAY I.

ON THE BEARINGS OF EGYPTIAN HISTORY

UPON THE PENTATEUCH.

9.

1. SOURCES of Egyptian history. 2. General results. 3. List of Pharaohs from 12th to 20th Dynasty. 4. Time of Abram's visit; objections and proofs; Story of the two Brothers; Benihassan; Story of Saneha; presents to Abram. 5. Time of Joseph; invasion of Hyksos; inquiry into Manetho's statements; era of Set Nubte. 6. Apepi or Apophis not the Pharaoh of Joseph. 7. Connection of 12th Dynasty with On. 8. Tomb of Chnumhotep; Egyptian nomes. Egyptian irrigation; labyrinth under Amenemha III. 10. Probable condition of the Israelites under the Hyksos. 11. Inquiry into date of Exodus. 12. Amosis or Aahmes I., a new king, a conqueror, builder of ports, &c., employs forced labourers. 13. Chronology, dates examined. 14. Last year of Thotmes II.; probable date of the Exodus. 15. Amenophis I. 16. Thotmes I. 17. Thotmes II.; events of reign; character of Queen Hatasou. 18. Campaigns of Thotmes III. concluded 40 years after decease of Thotmes II. 19. Objections considered. 20. Amenophis II. and Thotmes IV. 21. Amenophis III. and the Queen Tei. 22. Religious revolution in Egypt. 23. Statements of Manetho, Cheremon, Lysimachus, and Diodorus. 24. The identification of Rameses II. with the Pharaoh of Moses considered. 25. State of Palestine under the early Judges. 26. Campaigns of Seti I. against the Cheta. 27. Rameses II., length of reign, first campaign in Syria. 28. Fortresses built or enlarged. 29. Employment of Aperu identified with Hebrew captives. 30. Alliance of Rameses with Cheta. 31. State of Palestine described in Egyptian Papyrus. 32. State of Goshen at the same time incompatible with occupation by Israelites. 33. Reign of Merneptah; events and dates coincide with the first hypothesis in this Essay. 34. Rameses III.

[blocks in formation]

The historical notices drawn from the last source have little independent value. Facts of importance, corroborated by modern searches, are recorded by Herodotus, Diodorus, and other Greeks, but they are mixed with legends, disfigured by manifest forgeries, and their statements, so far as regards the chronology, are irreconcileable with contemporary inscriptions.

2

The fragments of Manetho have a higher

1 The principal object of this dissertation is to bring the latest discoveries to bear upon biblical questions, reference is therefore seldom made to works of great value already well known to all students. It is right to observe that it was printed in 1868; a few references have been made in the notes, and two or three in the text, to works which have appeared before the last revision in 1870.

2 The best account of Manetho is given by Rev. H, Browne in Kitto's 'Cyclopædia. All the frag

value. He was a priest, conversant with the literature of ancient Egypt, and had access to monuments which, under the Ptolemies, were for the most part in a state of perfect preservation. The original history perished at a very early period, and is only known from extracts in Josephus. The catalogue of Kings begins with gods, and continues through thirty dynasties of mortals, ending with Nectanebo 343 B.C. The list is derived from authentic sources, but there are numerous errors and mis-statements attributable in part to the ignorance or carelessness of transcribers. This remark applies to names, but still more to dates, which are seldom confirmed, and often contradicted, by the monuments.8

The facts drawn from old Egyptian docu

ments are to be found in the first volume of Bunsen's Egypt.' The extracts in Josephus are taken from the Αἰγυπτιακά; the catalogue of dynasties is preserved by Syncellus, 800 A.D., in two widely-differing recensions, one from the lost 'Chronographia of Julius Africanus, 220 A. D., the other from the Chronicon' of Eusebius, of which we have now the Armenian version.

[ocr errors]

3 The regnal years of many kings are deter

ments are of the highest importance. Some refer to past transactions, and are chiefly valuable as showing what view the Egyptians took of their ancient history, more especially of the succession and character of their ancient kings. Other inscriptions relate to contemporary events, which they describe for the most part in highly coloured and inflated language, but apparently without careless or wilful misstatement of the facts.

(2.) From these monuments the history of a large portion of the ancient and middle empire, with which alone we are now concerned, has been constructed, though not without long intervals of partial or total obscurity. The earliest part of that history has lately been investigated with great care, and the results given in a work by M. de Rouge," to which reference will frequently be made in the following pages. The names of nearly all the Pharaohs of the first six dynasties have been found, together with notices which prove the extent and complete organisation of their kingdom.

The interval between the sixth and the eleventh dynasties is of uncertain duration. No light is thrown upon it by contemporary monuments. M. de Rougé considers it probable that "the royal families placed here in the lists of Manetho do but represent sovereigns of a part of the country, contemporary with other Pharaohs."

The twelfth dynasty again stands out in clear and strong relief. The Pharaohs were lords of all Egypt; their monuments represent the highest development of sculpture and architecture, and the main events of their reigns are recorded in numerous inscriptions. Some facts of importance have also been lately ascertained in reference to the early kings of the thirteenth dynasty, proving that they too were masters of all Egypt, and therefore that the invasion of the Shepherd kings could not

mined from contemporary inscriptions. The discrepancies in Manetho are so numerous that they can scarcely be accounted for by errors of transcription.

The two most important documents referring to the past are the Turin Papyrus (published by Lepsius, Auswahl,' 1842, and Koenigsbuch,' 1858), and the list of kings lately discovered in the temple of Abydos by M. Mariette. It is printed in the 'Zeitschrift,' 1864, by M. de Rougé, 'Recherches,' pl. ii., and by M. Mariette, Fouilles,' vol. ii. It represents Seti I., accompanied by his son Rameses II., in the act of rendering homage to seventy-six of his ancestors, beginning with Mena or Menes.

Recherches sur les Monuments qu'on peut

attribuer aux six premières Dynasties de Manethon.' Paris, 1866.

6 'Recherches,' p. iv. This statement is again made in M. de Rouge's 'Exposé de l'État actuel des Études égyptiennes,' ́ 1867. p. 17.

See

have taken place at the time formerly assumed by Lepsius.

The interval between the fourth king of the thirteenth dynasty and the last of the seventeenth is a period of confusion and disturbance. The monuments supply no data by which the order of events and the chronology can be determined, or even probably conjectured That Egypt during that time was invaded by the Hyksos, who were masters of the north, has been proved by the researches of M. Mariette: part of the country appears to have been governed throughout the period by contemporary dynasties, ending with Rasekenen; but the most complete list of the ancestors of Seti I. gives the name of no Pharaoh between Amenemha, the last king but one of the twelfth dynasty, and Aahmes, or Amosis, the first of the eighteenth.

From the beginning of the eighteenth dynasty, when the Hyksos were expelled by Aahmes I., the monumental history of Egypt is tolerably complete; the succession of nearly all the Pharaohs and the principal events in the reigns of the most distinguished are distinctly recorded. The chronology, however, is uncertain; the regnal years are often found on the monuments, but without even an approximation to completeness; with one exception, to be noticed presently, no general era, or computation of lengthened periods, is based on the authority of ancient inscriptions.

(3.) The subjoined list embraces the whole period within which the Israelites and their ancestors are assumed by any scholars to have been in contact with Egypt before or soon after the settlement in Canaan.

12th Dynasty.-Amenemha, Osirtasin I., Amenemha II., Osirtasin II., Osirtasin III, Amenemha III., Amenemha IV., and a Queen, Ra-Sebek-Nefrou.

13th Dynasty.-A series of Pharaohs bearing a general name, Sebek-hotep.

14th to 17th Dynasty.-Hyksos, and Egyp‐ tians; the last of the Hyksos, Apepi, or Apophis; the last of the contemporary Egyptians, Ta-aaken Rasekenen.

18th Dynasty. - Aahmes I. (Nefertari Queen), Amenhotep I., Thotmes I. (Aahmes Regent), Thotmes II., Thotmes III., Amenhotep II., Thotmes IV., Amenhotep III., Amenhotep IV. (who took the name KhunAten), three other kings not recognised as legitimate, Horemheb.

19th Dynasty.-Rameses I., Seti I., Rameses II., Merneptah I, Seti II. or Merneptah II., Amemmeses, Siptah, and Tauser.

20th Dynasty.-Rameses III., twelve kings bearing the name Rameses with special desig

nations.

(4.) The first contact with Egypt is generally admitted, and may be here assumed to have

7 See M. de Rougé, 'Recherches,' pp vi. vii. 8 Lepsius is the only exception. All other scholars in England, France, and Germany, are

taken place before the eighteenth dynasty: the first question to be considered is whether the visit of Abram, and the immigration of the Israelites, are to be referred to the period of disturbance and general misery which followed the invasion of the Hyksos, and lasted till their expulsion, or to the earlier period when Egypt was united and prosperous under its native sovereigns.

The natural impression made by the narrative in the Book of Genesis would certainly be that the transactions which it sets before us so fully and distinctly, belong to the earlier period. The account of Abram's visit (Gen. xii. 10-20) is very brief, but it evidently represents Egypt as in a condition of great prosperity. It was the resort of foreigners in times of famine. Pharaoh and his princes are rich and luxurious, nor are there any indications of war or intestine troubles.

It has, however, been argued that some facts in this short narrative point rather to the habits of a nomad and half-savage race, than to the polished and civilised Pharaohs of the ancient empire. It is urged that representations of camels are not found on Egyptian monuments; but they formed part of the property which Abram acquired by the favour of Pharaoh. It is, however, known that long before that period the Pharaohs were masters of a large part of the Peninsula of Sinai, and of the intervening district, nor is it likely that they would have kept up their communications without using the ships of the desert.' Camels were not likely to be represented on the sepulchral monuments at Benihassan, far from the frontiers of Egypt; they were not used in the interior of the country, and were probably regarded as unclean.

Two objections of more importance rest on the supposed habits and feelings of the early so far agreed, they place the visit of Abraham before the eighteenth dynasty. Dr. Ebers places the visit of Abraham before the Hyksos, and that of Joseph some time after their expulsion, This involves, according to his calculations, an interval of some eight or ten centuries between Abraham and Joseph. The argu ments by which he shows that neither could have visited Egypt during the Hyksos period corroborate the position taken in this dissertation. Dr. Ebers' work, Egypten und die Bücher Moses,' published a few months since, reached me after this dissertation was ready for the press. Reference will be made to it in the

notes.

[ocr errors]

9 We have no other monuments which represent the habits of Egypt under the twelfth dynasty. There are no representations of camels on monuments of the Ptolemaic or the Roman

period, when they were of course well known to the Egyptians. Ebers supposes that it was contrary to the rules of Egyptian art to represent these uncouth forms. This is possible, but scarcely probable, since the giraffe and other strange animals are common on the monuments. It is more probable that they were held unclean.

Egyptian kings: late discoveries have converted these objections into strong arguments in favour of the earlier date.

The fear which Abram felt lest his wife should be taken from him, and that he should be slain for her sake, would seem to indicate wild and savage habits, such as can scarcely be attributed to native Egyptians. But in the story of the two brothers,10 the Pharaoh of the time, acting on the advice of his counsellors, sends two armies to fetch a beautif.:1 woman by force and then to murder her husband. The story is full of wild superstitions, but the portraiture of manners is remarkably simple and graphic, and it unquestionably represents the feelings of the Egyptians at the time of their highest civilisation. It belongs to the age of Rameses II., and the act is attributed not to a tyrant and oppressor, but to a Pharaoh beloved by his people, and passing into heaven at his decease.

Another curious coincidence has been pointed out by M. Chabas, 'Les Papyrus hiératiques de Berlin,' p. xiv. In a very ancient papyrus of Berlin, referring to the 12th dynasty, the wife and children of a foreigner are confiscated as a matter of course, and become the property of the king. M. Chabas observes, "C'est ainsi qu'à une époque probablement un peu postérieure à celle des événements que raconte notre papyrus, Abraham se vit enlever sa femme Sarai, qui fut placée dans la maison du Roi."

It is again objected that Abram was not likely to be admitted into the presence, much less into the favour, of a native Egyptian king, whereas a nomad of kindred origin and similar habits might willingly receive him.

We have, however, two distinct and absolute proofs that under the twelfth dynasty a personage of the race, habits, and position of Abram would be welcomed under such cir

cumstances as those described in Genesis.

In the sepulchral monuments at Benihassan, and in the tomb of the Governor of the province, a man of the highest rank, nearly related to the reigning Pharaoh, Osirtasin II., is found one of the most interesting and best known pictures of the ancient empire. It represen's the arrival of a nomad chief, with his family and dependents, to render homage and seek the protection of the prince. These foreigners are called Amu," a name which was given

10 This curious story, the earliest fiction in existence, is among the select Papyri in the British Museum: it is called the Papyrus d'Orbiney: a fac-simile is published by the Trustees of the Museum: it contains nineteen pages of hieratic writing, remarkably clear and legible: the style is simple, and presents fewer difficulties than any similar document. It has been translated in part by Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Le Page Renouf, and M. de Rouge. The story abounds throughout with illustrations of the narrative in the Pentateuch.

The word is applied to pastoral nomads,

specially to the native tribes on the north-west of Egypt and in Palestine of Semitic descent. The chief is called the Hak, or prince, corresponding to Sheich, as used chiefly of heads of tribes: his name is Abshah.12 The features of the family, their colour, and their costume, a rich tunic, or 66 coat of many colours," are thoroughly Semitic. It is to be observed also that, although they are represented as suppliants, making lowly obeisance, and bringing the customary gifts, yet the prince receives them as persons of some distinction: a scribe who presents them holds a tablet describing their number and purpose, and a slave behind the governor bears his sandals, which were only taken off on ceremonial occasions.

Not less striking is the evidence drawn from one of the oldest papyri in existence, lately translated by Mr. Goodwin. He calls it the Story of Saneha: the events which it relates belong to the reigns of the first two kings of the twelfth dynasty, Amenemha and Osirtasin. Saneha (i.e. son of the Sycomore, a name probably given or assumed on his adoption by the Egyptians) was, like the chief above described, an Amu; he was not only received into the service of the Pharaoh, but rose to high rank, and, even after a long residence as a fugitive in a foreign land, he was restored to favour, made "a counsellor among the officers, set among the chosen ones: precedence is accorded to him among the courtiers, he is installed in the house of a prince, and prepares his sepulchre among the tombs of the chief officers." Mr. Goodwin points out the resemblance between this narrative and the history of Abraham; but it proves something more, for it shows that to an Egyptian of that early age the circumstances in the history of Abraham and of Joseph which are often regarded as improbable would appear most natural, facts if not of frequent, yet of certain

Occurrence.

M. Chabas, in a treatise on the same papyrus, observes-"Ce narrateur devint le favori de ce monarque (sc. Asirtasin) et fut pendant quelque temps préposé à l'admin stration de and specially those of Arabia and Palestine. It is an Egyptian word, derived from Amu

, a herdsman's scourge. The word Shasous, which will occur frequently, is also applied to nomads, but probably with reference to their wandering habits, equivalent to Bedouins. Hyksos is not the name of a people, but of the dynasty, and probably means Prince of the Shasous. M. Chabas objects to this etymology, but it is generally accepted, and rests on strong grounds.

12 Some have thought that the name is identical with Abraham, an opinion which is undoubtedly incorrect; but there is a very remark able resemblance between the names, both in form and meaning: since "shah" means sand, and "raham "" means multitude. When Abshah was received, Abraham would not be rejected.

l'Égypte, pour en développer les ressources. Ce détail nous rappelle le rôle que, selon l'Écriture, Pharaon attribua au patriarche Joseph."

It may also be argued that such a reception was far less likely to be accorded to either of these Patriarchs at any later period. The little that is positively known of the Hyksos, the masters of Tanis, indicates a certain harshness and even ferocity of character;13 nor after their expulsion were the kings either of the eighteenth or nineteenth dynasty likely to look with favour upon foreigners bearing, as may be probably inferred, a close resemblance to them in features and language. The presents too which the Pharaoh made to Abram include sheep, oxen, asses, and slaves, all of which are frequently represented on the early monuments, and specially at Benihassan,1— a fact the more important to be noticed since V. Bohlen and others ventured to deny that either sheep or asses were common in Egypt: the ass was looked upon as unclean under the middle and later Empire, as Typhonian, and would not probably have been presented to a favoured stranger. The omission of horses is remarkable. The Hyksos, admitted to be Arabians, probably brought the horse into Egypt, and no animal was more prized by the later Pharaohs; but it was wholly unknown, so far as we can judge from the monuments, to the Egyptians of the twelfth or any earlier dynasty.15

In fact, the notices of Abram's-visit to Egypt agree so entirely with all that is certainly known of the Egyptians under the twelfth dynasty, and differ in so many material points from what is known from the monuments or early tradition of the Hyksos, and of the Middle Empire, that critics of very opposite schools have concurred in adopting the earlier date, notwithstanding the difficulty presented by their acceptance of the chronology of Manetho as given by Africanus or Josephus. For my own part I regard it as all but cer

13 This alludes particularly to the hard, sullen features, wholly unlike those of Egyptian princes, found on the lately-discovered monuments which See Rev. represent the Hyksos at Tanis. Archéologique,' 1861, p. 105. Dr. Ebers gives the head of the Sphinx from M. Mariette, 1. c. 208.

14 Sheep are represented on the Pyramids-in one inscription 3208 as the property of an individual. Asses of great size and beauty are found in many pictures at Benihassan. I believe, but may be mistaken, that they occur comparatively seldom on the monuments of later periods.

The

15 V. Bohlen infers from this omission that Genesis could not have been written by an author conversant with Egyptian manners. true inference is that he describes exactly what took place at the time which he gives an account of. It is very probable that horses were first introduced under the 12th dynasty, after the reign of Osirtasin. From that time the intercourse with Asia appears to have been constant.

tain that Abraham visited Egypt in some reign between the middle of the eleventh and the thirteenth dynasty, and most probably under one of the earliest Pharaohs of the twelfth. (5.) The history of Joseph belongs to a period about two centuries later.16 The duration of the twelfth dynasty is estimated at 213 years; and as the monuments were numerous and complete in Manetho's time, it is probable that the regnal years are drawn from them, and that the numbers are tolerably correct. It has been lately proved beyond all doubt that the invasion of the Hyksos could not have taken place immediately afterwards, as was formerly supposed. Colossal figures of great beauty, and inscriptions, have been found at Tanis, the head-quarters of the Hyksos, which prove that the fourth king of the thirteenth dynasty was still in undisturbed possession of that city; and monumental notices of even later kings are found, both at Tanis and in other parts of Egypt, scarcely reconcileable with the presence of the Arabian invaders.17

So far as the monuments and other Egyptian documents are concerned, we are at liberty to place the visit of Joseph either towards the end of the twelfth dynasty, the earlier portion of the thirteenth, or under the first Hyksos.

We are bound to give special attention to this last alternative; it was maintained by all ancient writers, and is accepted, with few but important exceptions, by modern critics. Thus Syncellus: "It is asserted unanimously by all that Joseph ruled over Egypt in the time of Apophis:" Eusebius, speaking of the seventeenth (Shepherd) dynasty, says Karà τούτους Αἰγυπτίων βασιλεὺς Ἰωσὴφ δείκνυται. This unanimous consent, however, refers only to Josephus and to those who drew their information exclusively from his account of Manetho's work. It depended wholly upon chronological calculations, and it is of course quite clear that, if the Shepherd dynasty had lasted some 800 years, all the narrative in Genesis would have fallen within it.

This necessitates a brief inquiry into the grounds for the statements in Manetho.

We have first an account of a dynasty of six Shepherd kings: their names in Josephus are Salatis, Beon, Apachnas, Apophis, Jannes, Assir. The general accuracy of this list may be admitted, transposing one name only, viz., Apophis, who is known to have been the last of the Shepherd kings. The late discoveries of M. Mariette at Tanis have given us contemporary authority for the first name. It is Semitic, old Arabian probably (Ɛáλaris mighty, ruler), but the

=

16 The dates are not certain, but Isaac was born some years after Abraham's visit to Egypt, lived 180 years (Gen. xxxv. 28), and died before Joseph was sold by his brethren.

17 See M. de Rougé, 'Recherches,' p. vii. We owe these important facts to M. Mariette.

Egyptians transcribe it accurately and give the full title, with the invariable adjuncts of Egyptian etiquette, "the Good Deity, star of both worlds, Son of the Sun, Set Shalti," beloved by Sutech, Lord of Avaris." So that Salatis, the first of the Shepherd dynasty, assumed at once the state and title of the Pharaohs, and at least claimed to be sovereign of all Egypt. The second name Beon or "Benon," the more correct reading of Africanus, is also found.1o Like many other words it has probably the same meaning 20 in Semitic and Egyptian, Son of the Eye, i.e. the beloved one. The order of the three last names is proved by the Turin Papyrus, and by the wellascertained position of Apophis.

Up to this point we have a solid foundation; six kings, foreigners, two bearing Semitic names, and recognised by ancient Egyptian documents. The duration of the dynasty may have been between two and three centuries.

But in addition to these kings, Manetho, according to Josephus, states that a dynasty or dynasties of Shepherds ruled over all Egypt upwards of 500 years. Africanus gives two dynasties, one lasting 284 years, the other 518. For this statement, however, no evidence is adduced. Not a single name is given by Josephus. The Turin Papyrus has no indication of the dynasty. The monuments are absolutely silent. The statement, indeed, is in glaring contradiction to the fact that Salatis was the first and Apophis the last of the Shepherd kings. It involves an admission of the most improbable of all assumptions, for which not a shadow of resemblance can be found in ancient or modern history,an assumption that, after a total suspension of the national life lasting from five to ten centuries, after a complete overthrow of their government, institutions, and religion, the Egyptians reverted to the exact point of civilisation in which the invaders found them, speaking and writing their own language without a trace of foreign infusion, worshipping the old gods with the old rites, retaining their old theology,

18 The group is noticeable noticeable. It is found also in a mutilated form in the Turin Papyrus.

19 In the Papyrus Sallier 1, pl. 1, l. 7.

20. The Egyptian is Beben-an, which Dr. Ebers derives from Ben, "son," and "an," Hebrew and classical term, "child of the eye" the eye. The Egyptians have the well-known for "darling."

21 The strong infusion of Semitic belongs to the age of Rameses II. The inscriptions of the eighteenth dynasty are nearly free from it. A very remarkable confirmation of the above statements is found in the account of the mummy of Aah-hotep, mother of Ahmes I., given by M. Mariette, Musée de Boulaq,' p. 254:-“L'Égypte est revenue sous la xviime dynastie avec la plus singulière persistance au style de la xime,"

« PreviousContinue »