Although we have already stated cur reasons for abandoning the theory that places the exodus under the nineteenth dynasty, it may he well to notice an additional and conclusive argument for rejecting as unhistorical the tale preserved by Manetho, which make- Meneptah, the son of Rameses II. the Pharaoh in whose reign the Israelites left Egypt. This tale was commonly current in Egypt, hut it must I e re- marked that the historian gives it i nly on the author- ity of tradition. M. Marictto's recent discoveries have added to the evidence we already hail on the subject. In this story the secret of the success ofthe rebels was that they had allotted to them by An enophis. or Meneptah, the city of Avaris, formerly held by the Shepherds, hut then in nuns. That the pei | le to whom this place was given were working in the <|iu.r- ries east of the Nile i- enough of it-elf to throti a doubt on the narrative, for there appear to have been no quar- ries north of those opp, site Memphis, fr< m w hi, h A\ a- ris was distant nearly the whole length ofthe Helta: hut when it is found that this very king, as well as his father, adorned the gnat temple of Avaris, the story
i- -cell to he e--i ntiallx false. Yet it i- Hot ill;) r, I a-
ble that some i nlamity occurred about this time, w ith which the Egyptians wilfully or ignorantly confounded
the exodus : if they did so ignorantly, there would be an argument that this event took place during the I period, which was probably in after-times an obscure part ofthe annals of Egypt. 'I he charac- ter of this Pharaoh finds its parallel among the Assyr- ians rather than the Egyptians. The impiety ofthe oppressor and that of Sennacherib are remarkably similar, though Sennacherib seem- to have been more resolute in his resistance than Pharaoh. 'I his rest m-
1, lance is not to I verlookc.l. especially as it -coins
to indicate an idiosyncrasy <.<( the Assyrians and kin-
PHARAOH
63
PHARAOH
dred nations, for national character was more marked in antiquity than it is now in most peoples, doubtless because isolation was then general and is now special. Thus, the Egyptian monuments show us a people highly reverencing their gods, and even those of other ! nations, the most powerful kings appearing as suppli- ants in the representations of the temples and tombs. In the Assyrian sculptures, on the contrary, the kings are seen rather as protected by the gods than as wor- shipping them ; so that we understand how in such a country the famous decree of Darius, which Daniel disobeyed, could be enacted. Again, the Egyptians do not seem to have supposed that their enemies were supported by gods hostile to those of Egypt, whereas the Assyrians considered their gods as more powerful than those of the nations they subdued. This is im- portant in connection with the idea that at least one of the Pharaohs of the oppression was an Assyrian.
The idolatry of Egypt appears to have arrived at its height in the time of this monarch. We see evidences of a great difference between the religious system of this period and of the time of Joseph's Pharaoh. At both periods indeed we read of the "magician and wise men of Egypt," but it by no means follows that because the names are the same the part dis- charged by them was identical in the two periods. Besides, we read in the later period (Exod. vii, 11) of an order of men (sorcerers, C1S1i'?,w) apparently un- known in the earlier. These men supported their au- thority and doctrine by claims to miraculous power (ver. 11), whether we suppose them to have executed their feats merely by a skilful system of jugglery and sleight of hand, or, as many think, by diabolical aid. The authority of the God of Israel, acknowl- edged by the earlier Pharaoh, is by this king scorn- fully renounced, and a vast system of polytheism, em- bracing the famous worship of sacred animals, is firmly established as the religion of Egypt (v, 2 ; xii, 12 ; viii, 2G). This was the suitable time chosen by God, when a great monarch ruled over the greatest empire of its time, which had brought to full development the idolatry by it widely propagated, to read a lesson to the Gentile world on the feebleness of idols as com- pared to him.
Before speaking of the later Pharaohs we may men- tion a point of weight in reference to the identification of these earlier ones. The accounts of the campaigns of the Pharaohs of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth dynasties have not been found to contain any reference to the Israelites. Hence it might be supposed that in their days, or at least during the greater part of the time, the Israelites were not yet in the Promised Land. There is, however, an almost equal silence as to the Canaanitish nations. The land itself, Kanana or Kanaan, is indeed mentioned as in- vaded, as well as those of Kheta and Amar, referring to the Hittites and Amorites ; but the latter two must have been branches of those nations seated in the val- ley of the Orontes. A recently discovered record of '1 hotlimes III, published by M. de Rouge in the Revue Archeologique (Nov. 1861, p. 344 sq), contains many names of Canaanitish towns conquered by that king, but not one recognised as Israelitish. These Canaan- itish names are, moreover, on the Israelitish borders, not in the heart of the country. It is interesting that a great battle is shown to have been won by this king at Megiddo. It seems probable that the Egyptians either abstained from attacking the Israelites from a recollection of the calamities of the exodus, or that they were on friendly terms. It is very remarkable that the Egyptians were granted privileges in the law (Deut. xxiii, 7), and that Shishak, the first king of Egypt after the exodus whom we know to have in- vaded the Hebrew territories, was of foreign extrac- tion, if not actually a foreigner.