GOSHEN
P31
GOSHEN
to derive it from tDl^S— for it also occurs as the name of a district and of a town in the south of Palestine (see l)elow, No. 2), where we could scarcely expect an appellation of Egyptian origin unless given after the Exodus, which in this case does not seem lilcely. It is also noticeable tiiat some of the names of places in Goshen or its neighborhood, as certainly Migdol and Baal-zephon (q. v.), are Shemitic, the only positive ex- ceptions being the cities Pithom and liameses, built during the oppression. The ne.\t mention of Goshen confirms the previous inference that its position was between Canaan and the Delta (Gen. xlvii, 1). The nature of the country is indicated still more clearly than in the passage last quoted in tlie answer of Pha- raoh to the request of Joseph's brethren, and in the account of their settling (Gen. xlvii, 5, C, 11). Go- shen was thus a pastoral countr}' where some of Pha- raoh's cattle were kept. The expression '• in the best of the land" (7"^i<i7 ^^"^^r?) must, we think, be rela- tive, the best of the land for a pastoral people (al- though we do not accept Michaelis's reading "pas- tures" by comparison with the Arabic, Sujipl. p. 1072 ; see Gesen. Thes. s. v. ^^"^"2), for in the matter of fer- tility the richest pai'ts of Egypt are tliose nearest to the Nile, a position whicli, as lias been seen, we cannot assign to Goshen. The sufficiency of tliis tract for
the Israelites, their prosperity there, and their virtual separation, as is evident from the account of the plagues, from the great body of the Egyptians, must also be borne in mind. The clearest indications of the exact position of Goshen are those afibrded by the nar- rative of tlie Exodus. The Israelites set out from the town of Kameses, in the land of Goshen, made two daj's' journey to the "edge of the wilderness," and in one daj' moi'e reached the Red Sea. At the starting- point two routes lay before tlieni, "the way of the land of the Philistines . . . that [was] near," and "tlie way of the wilderness of the Red Sea" (Exod. xiii, 17, IS). It is also represented, in conformity with tills position, at the last great struggle, as com- paratively near to Palestine, by the route tliat laj' through the land of the Philistines (Exod. xiii, 17). Then, while the Israelites do not appear to have had any considerable settlements on the further side of the Nile, yet it is clear they were in a position that admit- ted of ready access to it : it was on the river (wliether the main stream or one of the branches) tliat the in- fant Moses was exposed ; in connection with it also that several of the miracles wrought by ]Moses were performed ; and the fish of which they had been wont to partake, and the modes of irrigation with which the}'' were familiar, bespoke a residence somewhere in its neighborhood (Exod. ii, 5 ; vii, 19 ; viii, 5 ; Numb.
Map of the Land of Gosheo and it3 Vicinity,
GOSHEN"
932
GOSPEL
vi, 5 ; Deut. xi, 10). Yet the localit}' occupied bj' the Israelites could not have been very near the Nile, since three din's were siitticicnt for tiieir goiiif;; into the viklerness to keep a feast to tiic Lord (I^xod. v, ;!)• From tliese indications we infer that tlie land of Go- slieii nuist in part have been near the eastern side of the ancient Delta, Kanieses Ij'ing within the valley now called the wad}' et-Tumeylat, about thirty miles in a direct course from the ancient western shore of the Arabian Gulf. See Exode. The superficial ex- tent of this wady, if we include the whole cultivable part of the natural valley, which may somewhat ex- ceed that of the tract bearing this appellation, is prob- ably under sixty square geoj;raphical miles. If we suppose the entire Israelitish pojjulation at the time of the Exodus to have been 1,800,000, and the whole population, including Egyptians and foreigners otiier than the Israelites, about 2,000,000, this would give no less than between 30,000 and 40,000 inhabitants to tlie square mile, which would be half as dense as the ordinary population of an Eastern city. It must be remembered, however, that we need not suppose the Israelites to have been limited to the valley for pas- ture, but, like the Arabs, to have led their flocks into fertile tracts of the deserts around, and that we have taken for our estimate an extreme sum, that of the people at the Exodus. For the greater part of the sojourn their numbers must have been far lower, and before the Exodus they seem to have been partly Spread about the terrritorj' of the oppressor, although collected at Kameses at the time of their departure. One very large place, like the Shepherd stronghold of Avaris, which Manetho relates to have had at the first a garrison of 210,000 men, would also greatly diminish the disproportion of population to superficies. The very small superficial extent of Egypt in relation to ■ the population necessary to the construction of the vast monuments, and the maintenance of the great armies of the Pharaohs, requires a difl'erent proportion to that of other countries — a condition fully explained by the extraordinary fertility of the soil. Even now, when the population is almost at the lowest point it has reached in history, when villages have replaced towns, and hamlets villages, it is still denser than that of man}' parts of England. It is not necessary, how- ever, to suppose that during the whole period of the sojourn in E_'ypt the Israelites continued to dwell al- together within the same region : as they multiplied in number, and in process of time began to devote themselves to other occupations, they would naturally extend their settlements, and, at various points, be- come more intermingled with the population of Egypt. It is quite possible that certain of their number cross- ed the Pclusiac arm of the Nile, and acquired dwell- ings or possessions in the tract lying between it and the Tanitic (Kobinson, Researches, i, 70; Ilengsten- lieig, K<j!ipt and Boohs of Moxes, p. 15). Particular families may have also shot out in other directions ; and in this way would naturally arise that freer inter- course between them and the families of Egypt which appears to be implied in some of the later notices (Exod. xi, 2 ; xii, 12-23). Still, what we have indi- cated above as the land of Goshen, the district in wliich the original settlers from Canaan were assigned a home, continued to the last the head-quarters of the covenant people (see Geiger, De rcr/no Khrceoriun in ^J'-H.'ipf", -Marb. 1750). From the field of Zoan being mentioned in connection with the wonders of Moses (Psa. Ixxviii, 12, 43), some have supposed that the town of that name, situated in the Tanitic nome, must have been the capital of Pharaoh at the time. Bo- chart and Ilengstcnberg, among others, have advoca- ted this view, and said nearly all that is possilde for it, but they liave not been able to establish the point altogether satisfactorily; andit is quite probable that Zoan, in the passage referred to, is used in a general eense, as a kind of representative city in the land of