EGYPT
85
EGYPT
ferred to various sources. There is a trace of some primeval revelation in it ; also a strong Sabroan ele- ment. (See a full discussion of the subject, with fig- ures of the leading deities, in Kitto's Pictorial Bible, note on Deut. iv, IG). A more favorable view of the ancient Egyptian theology is taken by Wilkinson in his Ancient Egyptians (see his sunimarj- in the abridged ed. ii, 327 sq.) ; and it is probably ti'ue, as was the case witli the polytheism of the Greeks and Romans likewise, that the more learned and philosophical class- es wore able to spiritualize to some extent a religion which' could have been to the populace nothing but a gross idolatry.
The Israelites in Egypt appear, during the oppres- sion, to have adopted to some extent the Egyptian idol- atry (Josh, xxiv, 14 ; Ezek. xx, 7, 8). The golden calf, or rather steer, ?.^", was probably taken from the bull Apis, certainly from one of the sacred bulls. Eemphan and Chiun were foreign divinities adopted into the Egyptian Pantheon, and called in the hiero- glyphics RENPU (probabljr pronounced Remphu) and KEN. It can hardl}' be doubted that they were wor- shipped by the shepherds ; but there is no satisfoctory evidence that there was any separate foreign system of idolatry. See Kemphan. Ashtoreth was wor- shipped at Memphis, as is shown \ij a tablet of Ame- noph II, B.C. cir. 1415, at the quarries of Tura, oppo- site that city (Vyse's Pyramids, iii, "Tourah tablet 2"), in which she is represented as an Egyptian god- dess. The temple of "the Foreign Venus," in "the T3Tian camp" in Memphis (Herod, ii, 112), must have been sacred to her. Doubtless this worship was in- troduced bj^ the Phoenician shepherds.
As there are prominent traces of primeval revela- tion in the ancient Egyptian religion, we cannot be surprised at finding certain resemldances to the Mo- saic law, apart from the probability that whatever was unobjectionable in common belief and usages would be retjiined. The points in which the Egyp- tian religion shows strong traces of truth are, how- ever, doctrines of the very kind that the Law does not expressly teach. The Egyptian religion, in. its refer- ence to man, was a system of responsibility mainly depending on future rewards and punishments. The Law, in its reference to man, was a system of respon- sibilit}^ mainlj' depending on temporal rewards and punishments. All we learn, but this is of the utmost importance, is that every Israelite who came out of Egypt must have been fully acciuainted with the uni- versally recognised doctrines of the immortalitj' of the soul, man's responsibility, and future rewards and punishments, truths which the law does not, and of course could not, contradict. The idea that the Mosaic law was an Eg3'ptian invention is one of the worst ex- amples of modern reckless criticism.
XIII. Lmos. — We have no complete account of the laws of the ancient Egyptians either in their own rec- ords or in works of ancient writers. The passages in the Bible which throw light upon the laws in force during the sojourn of the Israelites rn Egypt most probably do not relate to pureh' native law, nor to law administered to natives, for during that whole period they may perhaps have been under shepherd rulers, and in an}' case it cannot be doubted that the}' would not !)e subject to al>solutely the same system as the Egyptians. The paintings and sculptures of the mon- uments indicate a very high degree of personal safetv, showing us that the people of all ranks commonly went unarmed, and without military protection. Vt'a must therefore infer that the laws relating to the maintenance of order were suflScient and strictly en- forced. The punishments seem to have been lighter than those of the Mosaic law, and very different in their relation to crime and in their nature. Capital punishment appears to have l)een almost restricted, in practice, to murder. Crimes of violence were more
severely treated than offences against religion and morals. Popular feeling seems to have taken the du- ties of the judge upon itself in the case of impiety alone. That in early times the Egyptian populace acted with reference to any offence against its religion as it did under the Greeks and Romans, is evident from the answer of Moses when Pharaoh proposed that the Hebrews should sacrifice in the land. " It is not meet so to do ; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Eg3'ptians to the Lord our God : lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians l>efore their eyes, and will they not stone us.?" (Exod. viii, 26.)
XIV. Government. — The rule was monarchical, but not of an absolute character. The sovereign was not superior to the laws, and the priests had the power to check the undue exercise of his authority. The kings under whom the Israelites lived seem to have been absolute, but even Joseph's Pharaoh did not venture to touch the independence of the priests. Nomes and districts were governed b}' officers whom the Greeks called nomarchs and toparchs. There seems to have been no hereditary aristocrac}', except perhaps at the earliest period, for indications of something of the kind occur in the inscriptions of the 4th and 12th dynasties.
XV. Foreign Poliry. — This must be regarded in its relation to the admission of foreigners into Egypt and to the treatment of tributary and allied nations. In the former aspect it was characterized by an exclu- siveness which sprang from a national hatred of the yellow and white races, and was maintained by the wisdom of preserving the institutions of the country from the influence of the pirates of tlie Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, and the robbers of the deserts. Hence the jealous exclusion of the Greeks from the northern ports until Naucratis was opened to them, and lience, too, the restriction of Shemitic settlers in earlier times to the land of Goshen, scarcely regarded as part of Egypt. It may be remarked as a proof of the strictness of this policy that during the wliole of the sojourn of the Israelites they appear to have been kept in Goshen. The key to the policy towards foreign nations, after making allowance for the hatred of the yellow and white races balanced by the regard for the red and black, is found in the position of the great Oriental rivals of Egypt. The supremacy or influ- ence of the Pharaohs over the nations lying between the Nile and the Euphrates depended as much on wis- dom in policy as prowess in arms. The kings of the 4th, Gth, and 15th dynasties appear to have uninter- ruptedly held the peninsula of Sinai, where tablets record their conquest of Asiatic nomads. But with the 18th dynasty commences the period of Egyptian supremacy. Very soon after the accession of this pow- erful line most of the countries between the Egyptian border and the Tigris were reduced to the condition of tributaries. Tiie empire seems to have lasted for nearly three centuries, from about B.C. 1500 to about 1200. The chie-f opponents of the Egyptians were the Hittites of the valley of the Orontes, with whom the Pharaohs waged long and fierce wars. After this time the influence of Egypt declined; and until thp reign of Shishak (B.C. cir. 990-967), it appears to have been confined to the western borders of Pales- tine. No doubt the rising greatness of Assyria caused the decline. Thenceforward to the days of Pharaoh Necho there was a constant struggle for the tracts ly- ing between Egypt, and Assyria, and Babylonia, until the disastrous battle at Carchemish finally destroyed the supremacy of tlie Pharaohs. It is probable that during the period of the empire an Assyrian or Baby- lonian king generally supported the opponents of the rulers of Egypt. Great aid from a powerful ally can indeed alone explain the strong resistance ottered by the Hittites. The general policy of the Egyptians to- wards their eastern tributaries seems to have been marked by great moderation. The Pharaohs inter- married with them, and neither forced upon them