6. Pharaoh, (he Father-in-hw of Mered. — In the
genealogies of the tribe of Judah, mention is made of the daughter of a Pharaoh married to an Israelite : " Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh, which Mered took" (1 Chron. iv, 18). That the name Pharaoh here prob- ably designates an Egyptian king we have already shown, and observed that the date of Mered is doubt- ful, although it is likely that he lived before, or not much after, the exodus. See Bithiah. It may be added that the name, Miriam, of one of the family of Mered (ver. 17), apparently his sister, or perhaps a daughter by Bithiah, suggests that this part of the genealogies may refer to about the time of the exodus. This marriage may tend to aid us in determining the age of the sojourn in Egypt. It is perhaps less probable that an Egyptian Pharaoh would have given his daugh- ter in marriage to an Israelite, than that a Shepherd king would have done so, before the oppression. But Bithiah may have been taken in war after the exodus, by the surprise of a caravan, or in a foray. Others, however, bring down this event to the times of or near those of David. It was then the policy of the Pha- raohs to ally themselves with the great families whose power lay between Egypt and Assyria, as we know from the intermarriages of Hadad and Solomon with the Egyptian dynasty. The most interesting feature connected with this transaction is the name, Bithiah (daughter of Jehovah), given to the daughter of Pha- raoh. It exhibits the true faith of Israel as exerting its influence abroad, and gaining proselytes even in the royal house of idolatrous Egypt. See Mered.
7. Pharaoh, the Protector of Hadad. — With the ex- ception of the preceding Pharaoh, whose date is doubt- ful, there is a long silence in Jewish history as to the kings of Egypt. During the period of the judges, and throughout the reigns of Saul and David, they had apparently neither entered into alliance nor made war with the Israelites. If such an event had happened, it is probable that some mention would have been made of it. It does not follow from this that during this pe- riod they had made no wars nor effected any conquests to the east of Egypt, for the seaboard of Canaan, which Israel did not during this time occupy, seems to have been a usual passage for the Egyptian armies in their eastern wars. But the silence of Scripture points to the probability that for this long period Egypt did not occupy the commanding position of the earlier or the later Pharaohs. Intestine divisions and dynastic quar- rels may during a great portion of it have retained the Egyptians within their proper borders, satisfied if they were not assailed by foreign nations. In the reign of David we incidentally find notice of a Pharaoh who received with distinction Hadad the Edomite fleeing from Joab, and gave him his sister-in-law for wife (1 Kings xi, 15-22). We find this Pharaoh ruling from about the twentieth year of David's reign to its close, i. e. from about B.C."i033 to B.C. 1013. His reign per- haps came to an end soon after David's death, as Sol- omon's father-in-law is thought to have been another Pharaoh. His treatment of Hadad, a bitter enemy of David, and with strong reason so, was certainly an unfriendly act towards the latter, but it does not seem to have been attended by any ulterior consequences. No war ensued between Egypt and Israel, and Pha- raoh made no attempt to restore Hadad to the throne of Edom. When this latter, upon David's death, sought to return home, evidently with the intention of disturbing the reign of Solomon in its commencement, Pharaoh was apparently opposed to his return, very probably from a disinclination to favor any step which might involve him in unpleasant relations with the powerful kingdom of Israel, then at the height of its greatness. Probably in the first part of this account the fugitives took refuge in an Egyptian mining-sta- tion in the peninsula of Sinai, and so obtained guides to conduct them into Egypt. There they were re- ceived in accordance with the Egyptian policy, but with the especial favor that saems to have been shown
PHARAOH
01
PHARAOH
about this time towards the eastern neighbors of the Pharaohs, which may reasonably be supposed to have led to the establishment of the twenty-second dynasty of foreign extraction. For the identification of this Pharaoh we have chronological indications, and the name of his wife. Unfortunately, however, the his- tory of Egypt at this time is extremely obscure, nei- ther the monuments nor Manetho giving us clear in- formation as to the kings. It appears that towards the latter part of the twentieth dynasty the high- priests of Amen, the god of Thebes, gained great pow- er, and at last supplanted the Rameses family, at least in Upper E :\ pt. At the same time a line of Tanitic kings, Manetho' s twenty-first dynasty, sterns to have ruled in Lower Egypt. The feeble twentieth dynasty was probably soon extinguished, but the priest-rulers and theTanites appear to have reigned contemporane- ously, until they were both succeeded by the Bubastites of the twenty-second dynasty, of whom Sheshonk I, the Shiskak of the Bible, was the first. The monuments have preserved the names of several of the high- priests, perhaps all, and probably of some of the Ta- nites; but it is a question whether Manetho's Tanitic line docs not include some of the former, and we have no means of testing the accuracy of its numbers. It ma}r be reasonably supposed thai the Pharaoh or Pha- raohs spoken of in the Bible as ruling in the time of David and Solomon were Tanites, as Tanis was near- est to the [sraelitish territory. We have therefore to compare the chronological indications of Scripture with the list of this dynasty. Shishak must have be- gun to reign in the twenty-fifth year of Solomon (B.C. 989). The conquest of Edom probably took place some fifty years earlier. It may therefore be inferred that Uadad tied to a king of Egypt who may have ruled at least twenty-five years, probably ceasing to govern before Solomon married the daughter of a Pha- raoh early in his reign ; for it seems unlikely that the protector of David's enemy would have given his daughter to Solomon, unless he were a powerless king, which it appears was not the case with Solomon's fa- ther-in-law. 'Ibis would give a reign of twenty-five years, or 25 +z separated from the close of the d\ nasty by a period of twenty-four or twenty-live years. Ac- cording to African us. the list of the twenty-first dynasty is as follows: Smendes, 26 years ; Psusennes, 46; Neph- elcheres, I ; Amenothis, 9; Osochor, 6; Psinaches, 9; Psusennes, 14 ; but Eusebius gives the second king 41, and the last 35 years, and his numbers make up the sum of lijO years, which Africanus and he agree in as- signing to the dynasty, although the true sum seems to be 109 years. If we take the numbers of Eusebius, Osochor would probably be the Pharaoh to whom Ua- dad led, and Psusennes II the father-in-law of Solo- mon; but the numbers of Africanus would substitute Psusennes I, and probably Psinaches. We cannot, i be sure that the reigns did not overlap, or were not separated by intervals, and the numbers are not to be considered trustworthy until tested by the monuments. The royal names of the period have been searched in vain for any one resembling Tahpa- nes. If the Egyptian equivalent to the similar geo- graphical name Tahpanhes, etc., were known, we might have some clew to that of this queen. See 1 .\'ir win.- ; 1 \iii-i \i>. 8. Pharaoh,thi Father-in-law of Solomon. — In the