3. Period of the Hebrew Snjourn. — In Gen. xxxix begins the interesting stor}- of Joseph's being carried down to Egypt, with all its important consequences for the great-grandchildren of Abraham. The produc- tiveness of the country is the allurement, famine the impulse. Attendant circumstances show that Egypt was then famous also for its commercial pursuits ; and the entire narrative gives the idea of a complex sys- tem of society (about B.C. 1890), and a well-constitu- ted yet arliitrary form of government. As in Eastern courts at later jjeriods of history, elevation to high of- fices was marked and sudden. The slave Joseph is taken from prison and from impending death, and raised to the dignity of prime vizier, and is intrusted with making provision for an approaching dearth of food, which he had himself foretold, during which he effects in favor of the ruling sovereign one of the greatest revolutions of property which historj- has re- corded. The high consideration in which the priestlv order was held is apparent. Joseph himself marries a daughter of the priest of On. Out of respect towards, as well as by the direct influence of Joseph, the He- III.— G
brews were well treated. The scriptural record, how- ever, distinctly states (xlvi, 34) that before the de- scent of Israel and his sons "every shepherd" was "an abomination unto the Egyptians." The He- brews, whose "trade had been about cattle," must have been odious in the eyes of the Egyptians, yet they are expressl}' permitted to dwell " in the best of the land" (xlvii, 6), which is identified with the land of Goshen, the place which the Israelites had prayed might be assigned to them, and which they obviously desired on account of the adaptation of its soil to their way of life as herdsmen. Having settled his father and family satisfactorily in the land, Joseph proceeded to supply the urgent wants of a hungry nation, and at the 'same time converted the tenure of all property from freeliold into tenancy-at-will, with a rent-charge of one fifth of the produce, leaving the priests' lands, however, in their own hands; and thus he gave an- other evidence of the greatness of their power.
The richness of Goshen was favoraltle, and the Is- raelites "grew and multiplied exceedingly," so that the land was filled with them. But Joseph was now dead ; time had passed on, and there rose up a new king (probablj' one of a new d^^nasty) " wliich knew (Exod. i, 8) not Joseph," having no personal knowl- edge, and, it may be, no definite information of his services ; who, becoming jealous of the increase of the Hebrews, set about persecuting them with the avowed intention of diminishing their numbers and crippling their power. Severe task-masters are therefore set over them ; heavy tasks are imposed ; the Hebrews are compelled to build "treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses." It is found, however, that they onlj' in- crease the more. In consequence, their burdens are doubled and their lives made bitter with hard bondage (Exod. i, 14), "in mortar and in brick, and in all man- ner of service in the field." See Brick. Their first- born males, moreover, are doomed to destruction the moment they come into being. The deepest heart- burnings ensue ; hatred arises between the oppressor and the oppressed ; the Israelites seek revenge in pri- vate and by stealth (Exod. ii, 12). At last a higher power interferes, and the afflicted race is permitted to quit Eg3'pt (B.C. 1658). At this time Egypt appears to have been a well-peopled and well-cultivated coun- try, with numerous cities, imder a despotic monarch, surrounded by officers of his court and a life-guard. There was a ceremonial at audience, a distinction of ranks, a state-prison, and a prime minister. Great buildings were carried on. There was set apart from the rest of the people an order of priests who probably filled offices in the civil government ; the priest of Midian and the priest of On seem to have ruled over the cities so named. There was in the general class of priests an order — wise men, sorcerers, and magi- cians— who had charge of a certain secret knowledge ; there were physicians or embalmers of the dead ; the royal army contained chosen captains, and liorsemen, and chariots. The attention which the people at large paid to agriculture, and the fixed notions of property which thej"^ in consequence had, made them hold the shepherd or nomade tril)es in abhojTence, as freeboot- ers only less dangerous than hunting-tribes. See Phae.\oh.
According to the scheme of Biblical chronology, which we have adopted as the most probable, the whole sojourn in Egypt would belong to the period be- fore the 18th dynasty. The Israelites would have come in and gone forth during that obscure age, for the history of which we have little or no monumental evi- dence. This would explain the absence of any posi- tive mention of them on the Egyptian monuments. Some assert that they were an unimportant Arab tribe, and therefore would not be mentioned, and that the calamities attending tlieir departure could not l)e com- memorated. These two propositions are contradictory, and the difficulties are unsolved. If, as Lepsius sup-
EGYPT
98
EGYPT
poses, the Israelites came in under the 18th dynasty, and went out under the 10th, or if, as Bunsen holds, they came in under the I'ith, and (after a sojourn of 1434 years !) went out under the 19th, the oppression in both cases falling in a period of which we have abimdant contemporary monuments, sometimes the records of every year, it is impossible that the monu- ments should be wholly silent if the Biblical narrative is true. Let us examine the details of that narrative. At the time to which we should assign Joseph's rule, Egypt was under Shepherds, and Egj^ptian kings of no great strength. Since the I'haraoh of Joseph must have been a powerful ruler and held Lower Egj'pt, there can be no question that he was, if the dates be correct, a Shepherd of the loth dj'nasty. How 'does the Biblical evidence aflect this inference ? Nothing is more striking throughout the sihcient Egyptian in- scriptions and writings than the bitter dislike of most foreigners, especially Easterns. They are constantly spoken of in the same terms as the inhabitants of the infernal regions, not alone when at war with the Pha- raohs, but in time of peace and in the case of friend- ly nations. It is a feeling paralleled in our daj'S by that of the Chinese alone. The accounts of the Greek writers, and the whole history of the later period, abun- dantly confirm this estimate of the prejudice of the Egyptians against foreignei'S. It seems to us perfect- 1}^ incredible that Joseph should be the minister of an Egyptian king. In lesser particulars the evidence is not less strong. The Pharaoh of Joseph is a despot, whose will is law, who kills and pardons at his pleas- ure ; who not only raises a foreign slave to the head of his administration, but through his means makes all the Egyptians, except the priests, serfs of the crown. The Egj'ptian kings, on the contrarj', were restrained bj'' the laws, shared the public dislike of foreigners, and would have avoided the very policy Joseph fol- lowed, which would have weakened the attachment of their fellow-countrymen bj^ the loosening of local ties and complete reducing to bondage of the population, although it would have greatly strengthened the pow- er of an alien sovereign. Pharaoh's conduct towards Joseph's family points to the same conclusion. He gladly invites the strangers, and gives them leave to dwell, not among the Egyptians, but in Goshen, where his own cattle seem to have been (Gen. xlvi, 34 ; xlvii, G). His acts indicate a fellow-feeling, and a desire to strengthen himself against the national partj\ See Joseph.