SHEPPIERD-KINGS
668
SIIEPHERD-KINGS
account, of course, Joscphiis violently controverts; but there is no occasiim to doubt its accuracy except as to the evidently malicious and arbitrary identification of these lepri)us insurrectionists with the Hebrews. The most casual reader cannot fail, as Joscpluis intimates, to note the contradiction in JIanetho. if he meant to make out an identity of the Jews with luith the Hyk- sos and the rebels, since the Sliejilierds liad been totally expelled lonj;' before the date of tlie leperb-, and the lie- brews had but one exodus. In connection with these excerpts from Manetho, Josephus cites passages from Chivremon and others beariuf^ uiion the same subject, but they contain nothinjj of importance to our purpose. "We are not concerned liere to refute, whether indii;- iianlly or coolh% either part of this migration as a gar- bled account of the dei)arture of tlie Israelites out of Egypt; our only object is to ascertain, if possible, its chronological position with reference to the Kxodus. We know of no positive method for doing this but by a direct comparison of the dates of the two events, as nearly as they can be historically, or rather chronolog- ically, determined. Unfortunately the uncertainty of many of the elements that enter into the settlement of this early portion of l)oth the Egyptian and the Biblical chronology forbids any absolute satisfaction on this point. If, liowever, we may trust to the accuracy of the conclusions recently arrived at, we may, with toler- able safety, set down the sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt as continuing I5.C. 1874-1058, and the rule of tlie Hyksos as lasting B.C. 2003-1470; in other words, the entire period of 2115 years during which the He- brews were in Egypt was contemporaneous with that of the Hyksos, and about the middle of the latter. Some writers have claimed (Birch, I'^jupf, p. 131) that the name Eaamses (or Rameses), one of the " treasure cities," built by the Israelites in their period of bondage (Exod. i, 11), is conclusive proof that the oppression took place under the liamessidae (nineteenth dynasty, B.C. 1302); but this is inconsistent with the fact that Goshen is called "the land of Kameses" (Gen. xlvii, 11) in the time of .Joseph (B.C. 1874).
The only information we have of the Hyksos from other ancient writers on Egypt consists of such slight notices in the fragments of Manetho as the following by Africanus : " Fifteenth dynasty— six foreign Pho'- nician kings, who also took IMenijihis. They likewise founded a city in the Sethroite nome, advancing from which they reduced the Egyiitians to subjection ;" "Sixteenth dynasty — thirty other Shepherd-kings;" "Seventeenth dynasty — forty-three other Sliepherd- kings, and forty -three Theban Diospolites together." Instead of this Eusebius has simply " Seventeenth dy- nasty—(four) foreign I'ho'nician Shepherd-kings (broth- ers), who also took Memphis. . . . 'I'hev founded a city in the Sethroite nome, advancing from which they sub- dued Egypt." There are a few indications in the Bib- lical reconis which have been mostly overlooked in this discussion, but which to our mind go far towards contirmiiig this relative [losition of the two periods. In the first place, we are expressly told that in the time of .Joseph "every she|)berd was an abomination unto the Kgyiitiaiis"((;en. xlvi, 34). 'I'his shows that the Shepherd invasion had occurred l)efore that date, as it seems to be the only reasonable explanation of so deep an abhorrence. In the second place, liowever, it is clear, not only from the entire narrative, but espe- cially from the fact that the Israelites were i)laced in tiosheii, evidently as a break-water against these for- eign irruptions, that the Hyksos had not yet gained the uppcr-iiand, at least in Memphis, where the capital of .biseph's I'haraoh seetns to have been located; and this accords with the language of .bisephus above, which implies that the capture of Memphis did not occur till an advanced period in the Sheplienl line, perba()» the beginning of the sixteenlh dynasty. It is true, .losepbus seems to locate the first Sbej)herd- king at Mem[ilii8, but he betrays the inaccuracy of
this expression by adding immediately that the king in tpiestion built Avaris as his capital; and the table of dynasties shows that the Mempliitic dynasty con- tinued till about the beginning of the Shejiherd dy- nasty XVI. Indeed, the change in the policy of the Egyptians towards the Hebrews ( Exod. i, 8), which took place B.C. cir. 1738, singularly accords with the revolution in Lower Egypt at the end of the eighth dynasty (B.C. 1740), or the beginning of the sixteenth (B.C. 1755). Finally, the remark incidentally dropped as a reason by the " new king" for oppressing the Is- raelites, " Lest, when there falleth out any war, they join themselves unto our enemies, and tight against us, and so get them up out of the land," which at first sight seems most appropriate in the mouth of one of the regular ]\Iem])hitic line, bears, when more closely examined, strongly in the opposite direction. So far as joining the enemy is concerned, there could be little difference : the Shepherds are supposed by some to have been naturally friendly towards their neighbors and fellow-shepherds the Hebrews; but, on the other hand, we know the Hebrews were closely in alliance with the long -established and apparently legitimate native sovereigns — had been so, in fact, ever since the days of Abraham (Gen. xii, 16); and since the Hebrews had been located, as we have seen above, in Goshen expressly for a purpose adverse to the Hyksos, we can hardly suppose that they had coalesced in sympathy or plans. The tyrant's fear was not so much of the arms of the Hebrews, for they were certainly not for- midable soldiers, but rather lest they should seize the opportunity of the existing civil convulsion to escape from Egypt. He was not alarmed, it seems, at the prospect of their increasing as an irivadhuj force, such as were the Hyksos, but only lest their growing num- bers should warrant them in migrating bodily to some more comfortable region. This implies that they had already experienced ill - treatment or dissatisfaction. From what source could this have arisen? They had the best possible land for their vocation (Gen, xlvii, 6); they had enjoyed royal patronage to the full; they had never hitherto been oppressed by government. They had always been peaceable and loyal citizens. Why should they now be suspected and distrained ? The jealousy, if on the part of the n,Ttive rei/ime. seems inexplicable; and we may add that such a rigorous and illegal course is not in accordance with what we otherwise know of the polity of the legitimate sover- eigns of ancient Egypt. We cannot but suspect that bickerings, rivalries, and animosity had long existed be- tween the Hebrews and the lawless, uncultivated Hyk- sos on their frontier; and raids such as the Israelites afterwards experienced from their Bedawin neighbors in Palesliiie had. di>iibtless, often been made upon their quiet domain by these Bene-Kedcm, as .losephus vir- tually styles them. It was I his annoyance that had tempted the Hebrews to long for a less exposed situa- tion; and when they saw these freebooters installed as lords, they might well think it high time to decamp. The whole conducl of the Hyksos, as revealed by .lose- phus, shows them to have been of this domineering, foraging, semi-savage character. Tliey were, in fact, congeners of the Canaanites, with whom the Israelites had henceforth a perpetual enmity, despite the tradi- tional comity of earlier days. No genuine Egyptian monarch seems capable of the barbarity of the I'haraoh of the Kxodus; but the atrocities which .b)sephus slates th.'it the Hyksos )H'r)ietraled in Iheir later invasion justify the belief that it was they who, in the days of their power, made Egypt known as " the house of bond- age." The irritation and vexation caused by this sys- tem of petty persecution during the long contact of the Israelites with the Hyksos in Egypt cherished as well as disclosed (he early purpose of the former to re- turn to the land of iheir forefathers ((ien. 1, 25), and had been predicled of old (xv, 13); but it was not till the domination of the latter had made it gallintr to an in-