This Pharaoh is generally considered to have been the Apries or Vaphres tin hieroglyphic [Vak-lp^ra- hiih) of whom an account is given in Herodotus ami Diodorus (Wilkinson, i. 168; Lewis. Astronomy of ike . I in-'it ni.-: p. 317). He was, according to thi historian, the son of Psammis, .and the grandson of Pharaoh-Necho, and enjoyed a fortunate reign of twen- ty-five years (ii, clxi). Wilkinson (i, 179) is doubtful whether he is the same person as Psammetichus III. Bunsen considers him to have been the fourth king of the twenty-sixth dynasty | Egypt, i. 16 1 1. < >f Pharaoh- Necho we are told that alter hi- defeat by Nebuchad- nezzar be came forth out of Egypt no more: but Pha- raoh-Hophra had recovered strength sufficient to enable him to meet the armies of Babylon out of hi- own coun- try. At the time we read of him in Scripture he was in intimate alliance with Zedekiah. and il w as doubtll SS in -real part owing to hi- reliance upon Egypt that the
infatuated king of Judah ventured to enter upon that contest with Nebuchadnezzar which terminated in the famous captivity of seventy years in Babylon. The pride of this Pharaoh wa- excessive. Ezekiel ixxix. 3) compares him to a great dragon lying in the midst of bis rivers, and saying. "My river i- mine own. and 1 have made il for myself." much as his successful antag- onist Nebuchadnezzar gloried in the contemplation of Babylon. Influenced by an opinion of Pharaoh's pow< r. and stimulated in all likelihood by promises of aid, Zed- ekiah rebelled against i he Babylonians, and drew on that siege of Jerusalem which after two years resulted in its capture i •_' Kings xxv. 1 3). The narrative of ibis event in Kings is very concise, but the fuller accounts In Jeremiah bring before us a temporary suspension of the siege caused by the advance of Pharaoh-Hophra with an Egyptian army to relieve Zedekiah (Jer. xxxvii, 5 12). It is quite plain from Jeremiah that
the siege wa- abandoned for a time and the Babylonian
army withdraw n from Jerusalem, so as to allow free in- tercourse between the city ami the surrounding coun- try: hut whether the Chaldsean army withdrew before i he advancing army of Egypt or advanced against it is not agreed on. Josephus i.l»/. x. 7. .". > expressly stales that Nebuchadnezzar on hearing of the march of the Egyptians broke up from before Jerusalem, met the Egyptians on their advance, conquered them in battle,
drove them out of Syria, and then returned to I he siege
of Jerusalem. Some, however, think that the Baby- lonians retreated from before the Egyptians, who on this occasion look Gaza, Sidon, and Tyre (Trevor,
PHARAOH
67
PHARATHONI
Egypt, p. 321). Looking simply to the scriptural ac- count, the case appears to stand thus: On hearing of the rebellion of Zedekiah, Nebuchadnezzar despatched a force against Jerusalem, but without accompanying it himself. This force was sufficient to shut up Zedekiah within the city, but was not able to meet the Egyptian army in the field. This is the partial siege which is spoken of in Jer. xxxvii, 5-11, in which nothing is said of Nebuchadnezzar's presence. On the approach of Pharaoh- Hophra the Chaldaean army, unequal to the conflict, retired before him, and he advanced unopposed. This was probably in the eighth year of Zedekiah. That Pharaoh came to Jerusalem we are not told. Probably on hearing of the raising of the siege he judged it unnecessary, and took the easier coast-line towards Syria (Jer. xlvii, 1). Nebuchadnezzar, made aware of the retreat of his army, now advanced with his entire force (Jer. xxxix. 1). laid siege to Jerusalem in the ninth year of Zedekiah, and took it in the elev- enth year. That the Egyptians and Babylonians met on this occasion in battle is not stated in the Bible. We think it probable from Jer. xxxvii, 7, that on hear- ing of Nebuchadnezzar's approach with the entire army of Babylon, the Egyptians retired without a contest and left Jerusalem to its fate (see Rawlinson's Herodotus, i, 423). Pharaoh-IIophra continued to be king of Egypt after the overthrow of Zedekiah (Jer. xliv, 30), and he and his land were the refuge of those Jews who, con- trary to God's command to remain in their own land after the general captivity, preferred a course of their own. They expected peace beneath the shadow of Egypt, trusting in the power of Pharaoh, who seems till then to have enjoyed great prosperity. But in this they were to be disappointed. Pharaoh was himself to be delivered "into the hands of those who sought his life," of which Herodotus gives an account (ii, 169) ; at the very entry of Pharaoh's palace in Taphanes the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar was to set his throne and spread his pavilion (Jer. xliii, 10) j and henceforth Egypt was to descend in the scale of nations, and to become the meanest among kingdoms. Herodotus re- lates how he attacked Sidon, and fought a battle at sea with the king of Tyre, until at length an army which he had despatched to conquer Cyrene was routed, and the Egyptians, thinking he had purposely caused its overthrow to gain entire power, no doubt by substi- tuting mercenaries for native troops, revolted, and set up Amasis as king. Apries, only supported by the Ca- rian and Ionian mercenaries, was routed in a pitched battle. Herodotus remarks in narrating this, liIt is said that Apries believed that there was not a god who could cast him down from his eminence, so firmly did he think that he had established himself in his king- dom." He was taken prisoner, and Amasis for a while treated him with kindness, but when the Egyptians blamed him, " he gave Apries over into the hands of his former subjects, to deal with as they chose. Then the Egyptians ttiokhim and strangled him" (Herod, ii, 161- 109). The Scripture passages, which entirely agree with the account Herodotus gives of the death of Apries, make it not improbable that the invasion of Nebuchad- nezzar was the cause of that disaffection of his subjects which ended in the overthrow and death of this Pha- raoh. The invasion is not spoken of by any trustworthy profane historian excepting Berosus (Con', Anc. Frag. 2d ed. p. 37, 38), but the silence of Herodotus and others can no longer be a matter of surprise, as we now know from the Assyrian records in cuneiform of conquests of Egypt either unrecorded elsewhere or only mentioned by second-rate annalists. See Hophra.