cumstance which would be absolutely unaccountable in one of the immediate successors of the same pharaonic house. And none was more deeply indebted to the devotion and ability of Joseph than the crown of Egypt. For at the bottom of the simple and unpretending narrative of the last ten chapters of Genesis, the experienced historian will easily discover a fundamental change, if not an internal revolution, of the Egyptian constitution, far more in favour of the kings than of the people. The authority of the former was, before this period, weakened, and their energy shackled, by the increasing influence of the two first castes, that of the priests and the warriors, against whose power and presumption they could only find a weapon, if the resources of the people, hitherto left to their own development, were secured for the aggrandizement of the royal revenues, This great consummation was effected by the ingenious measures of Joseph, by which almost the whole of the landed property of the people passed into the hands of the king, and even their persons came into his dependence; a translocation of the inhabitants alienated them from the soil of their ancestors, thus severing all their connection with the past; and the tax of the fifth part of their income filled the exchequer of the king. Thus the Pharaohs gained an enormous amount of property; their power was consolidated; and they could now easily defy the arrogance of the privileged and prepollent classes. In a word, according to the narration of Genesis, the financial revolution caused by Joseph, brought all territories, except the property of the priests, into the possession of the crown, and the inhabitants were, henceforth, but the lessees of this royal property. Whatever the condition of the people might have been under such a change, is it in any way likely that the kings of the same dynasty, who followed that Pharaoh in

due course and legitimate succession, should have forgotten the infinite obligations they owed to Joseph, or that they should have been ignorant of his merits?

This suggestion of a new king, from another dynasty, which offers itself spontaneously and a priori, is fully corroborated by weighty testimonies of history. For Josephus (against Apion, i. 14) relates, on the authority of Manetho, that, at a time which would well agree with the event alluded to in our text, troops of common invaders coming from the east (ἐκ τῶν πρὸς ἀνατολὴν μερῶν), and supposed by many to have been Arabians, conquered Egypt, and subdued her rulers. That invading tribe was called by the Egyptians, Hyksos ('Yкows, i. e. Baoiλeïs Tоéves), shepherd-kings (an appellation indicative of the contempt in which they were held by the Egyptians). After they had cruelly raged in all Egypt, they elected a king of the name of Salatis. So far the account of Josephus. If we merely substitute the conquest of a part of Egypt (viz. of Lower Egypt, of which the land of Goshen formed a province) instead of the whole of Egypt, as we are, indeed, justified from Eusebius (Praep. Evang. ix. 27), we have, in these facts, a plausible narration of probable events; and if so, it is more than likely that Salatis was this new king alluded to in our text; he was not only another, but a new, a foreign king, unacquainted with, and naturally averse to, the partisans of the old dynasty. In such a new king alone the precautionary measures against the increase and influence of another tribe in the midst of his own dominions, are explicable, and receive their proper light (ver. 10). This view is further strengthened by the express remark of Josephus (Antiq. ii. ix. 1), that the Israelites were oppressed by the Egyptians, after the death of Joseph, because the royal power had passed into another dynasty. Bohlen raises the objection, that the biblical records speak

66

positively against the rule of a foreign tribe during the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, "as they evidently describe the native Egyptians, with their nonsemitic language, their aversion to shepherds and animal sacrifices, and their other well-known peculiarities." Without denying the truth and ingenuity of this remark, which would, however, much more apply to the time of Joseph and the patriarchs, than to the period of the 'new king” in our text; it does in no way affect our supposition, as policy and prudence must have prescribed to the foreign usurpers the expediency of adopting the customs, and, in public transactions, the language of their new country, rather than of adhering to those of their native abodes; a system of accommodation especially practised by nomadic conquerors; as, for instance, the Mongols and Mantschus in China, and almost invariably traceable in all instances when the conquered nation was superior to the conquerors in civilization.

From this exposition, it is self-evident, that the opinion of those who (like Schloezer, Eichhorn, and others leaning on the erroneous conclusions of Josephus) believe that the Hyksos were the Israelites, is perfectly inadmissible and perverse, an opinion which, among other arguments, could easily be refuted by the fact that, from the text of the Bible, we are in no respect justified to consider the descendants of Jacob as invaders, or conquerors of Egypt. That the Hyksos are not identical with the Hebrews, is clearly obvious from Josephus against Apion, i. 26. It is the opinion of Champollion, that this "nation of shepherds" invaded, and took possession of Egypt, or a part thereof, before the immigration of Joseph, and even that of Abraham, and that the first monarch of the diospolitan, or 18th dynasty, is meant by our "new king." But this conjecture would also militate against all the historical and rational arguments urged in

our exposition. Winer, Jost, and Lengerke, likewise offer the supposition that the Hebrews settled in Egypt during the reign of the Hyksos, and that the new dynasty, alluded to in our text, seized the government, after having expelled the Hyksos. But the former author himself hints at the chronological difficulty of this conjecture, as, according to Eusebius, between the accession of Aphophis (in Joseph's time) and the death of Amenophis (at the exodus), only 392 years elapsed, which would differ from xii. 40, by about forty years. Cahen quotes a chronological computation from a Hebrew work, from which it would appear that between the death of Joseph, and the reign of the new king, a period of 59 years intervened. That calculation starts, however, from the erroneous supposition, that the birth of Moses was contemporary with the accession of that new king, whereas the same monarch must already have spent considerable time with the two first designs for the weakening of the Israelites anterior to the birth of Moses (see our notes to ver. 11 and 22). We cannot enter here more fully into the history of the Hyksos, and refer the reader for a more detailed exposition to Heeren, Ideas, ii. p. 577-586; Hengstenberg, the Books of Moses, and Egypt, p. 257-277, who is of opinion that the whole report about the Hyksos is an Egyptian fabrication; Faber, "On the Origin of Pagan Idolatry," vol. iii. book vi. chap. 5, who adopts the doubtful statement of Manetho (Josephus, c. Ap. i. 28) respecting a re-establishment of the Hyksos, 37 years after the death of Joseph, after they had once been expelled from Egypt, and settled in Philistia, 15 years before Joseph was sold into Egypt. (See our Introduction, § 3, i.).

9. "It is worthy of consideration, that the Egyptian king planned the means for crushing the power of the Israelites in common deliberation with his people, whilst the atrocious commands for check

majestic temples which the great conqueror Sesostris erected, he ordered the inscription to be conspicuously engraved: "No native Egyptian has been employed in constructing this building" (Diod. i. 56). This circumstance was, according to Josephus (Antiq. II. xii. 2), particularly alluded to by Moses, when God commanded him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt; "How shall I be able," said he, "to persuade Pharaoh to allow them to depart, who, by their labour, so materially contribute to the promotion of national prosperity?"

11. We deem it advisable to preface the history of the Hebrew bondage in Egypt with the following preliminary remark. We are not entitled to suppose that the oppression of the Israelites in Egypt commenced immediately after the death of Joseph. The historical accounts on this point fluctuate between 80 and 400 years. The latter period is evidently too protracted, and "perfectly unhistorical," as the sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt amounted only to 430 years (xii. 40). According to our supposition (ver. 8), the new king is a monarch of the foreign (Arabian) tribe of the Hyksos, who, after their usurpation, thought it a matter of expediency and policy to oppress the Hebrews, and paralyse their energies. Their extraordinary increase, and their increase only, was, to him, an object of apprehension, and he devised measures to stay it. But can the Israelites, already one or two generations after Jacob, be supposed to have increased to any formidable multitude? The oppressive measures must, therefore, have begun considerably later, although the Hyksos might have invaded and conquered the country (or a portion thereof) at a much earlier date; so that the period of the real and severe thraldom of the Israelites in Egypt may be assumed as considerably shorter than is usually supposed, but at least 100 years

"A

before the Exodus, see Introd. § 2, i. 1. Hales (II. i. 180) also believes that the Bible-chronology, which dates the commencement of the bondage of the Israelites immediately from Joseph's death, or 71 years after their settlement in Egypt, is in this point questionable, and he thinks that it ought to be dated at least 30 years, or one generation later, although one of his reasons, that the former period would be too small to bring Joseph into oblivion, is of no weight considering that a new dynasty followed on the Egyptian throne. So much may be unhesitatingly asserted, that the sufferings of the Hebrews were neither universal nor uninterrupted. general and perfect oppression of the Israelites in Goshen," says Jost (Hist. i. 76, 77) "did not take place. It is of importance to remark, that, except the few circumstances related in the Holy Books, no other fact is mentioned as an accompanying evil of that thraldom, so that the Egyptians appear to have had nothing in view but their own safety. Even the command to kill the new-born male children, seems not to have been executed (?) and was perhaps only intended as a threat. The duration of the oppression is unknown. The Israelites continued, nevertheless, to be herdsmen and engaged in all occupations connected with such pursuits. In fact, there were always among them experienced workmen of every kind, as was manifest soon after their departure from Egypt. From all this we may conclude that the Egyptians neither robbed the property of the Israelites, nor intended their hostile destruction." In accordance with this view we read in Num. xi. 18, "it was well with us in Egypt," (see 1 Chron. iv. 21, 23; vii. 21-24).

....

The superintendents of works were the superior officers, to whom the taskmasters were subordinated (see note to ch. v. 6). The tyrant of Egypt hoped to annihilate, by unremitting exertions

their whole attention is absorbed in gaining their daily bread, and no time is left them to think of stratagems for their redemption." From a similar principle, Tarquinius Superbus constantly occupied the plebeians with the construction of trenches and sewers (Liv. i. 56). "Many of the Egyptian kings had, not a passion, but a fury, for building. To this propensity, however, Egypt owes a great number of monuments both of utility and embellishment." See note to ii. 10.Pithom, a city in Lower Egypt, on the east of the Nile, most probably the same town which Herodotus (ii. 158) calls Patumos, the Arabian city near Bubastis, (now Tell Basta, in the vicinity of the village Benalhassar), which phrase may imply a town of Egypt situated near the Arabic (Red) Sea; but we are certainly justified to understand it of an Egyptian city built by, or under the direction of Arabians, so that from this side also the supposition of the reign of the Arabian Hyksos in Egypt would be unexpectedly corroborated. According to Champollion the original name of Pithom was Thoum (enclosed, surrounded by mountains), the syllable Pi being the Egyptian article. "It seems," says he, "that it was situated to the south of Bubastis, near the spot where Bilbeis stands now. Significant is the remark of Manetho, that the king Salatis fortified the eastern cities, and that he established a strong camp in Avaris or Abaris in which he placed 240,000 soldiers, and which Ewald sagaciously conjectures to be identical with the camp of the Hebrews, Raamses.

This town is to be distinguished from the land or province Rameses, mentioned in Genesis xlvii. 11 and Exod. xii. 37, and evidently identical with Goshen. It was built by the Israelites (not fortified, or re-built, as Gesenius and Rosenmüller are inclined to believe, for the Hebrew verb here used, does not admit of this interpretation), and received its name from the frequent appellation of the Egyptian Pharaohs, Ramses or Rameses, the Son of the Sun (a proud surname assumed by other oriental sovereigns also); and later, the whole province in which it was situated, was called Rameses (and in Genesis it is mentioned under this name by way of anticipation), Jablonsky, following the Arabic translation of Saadiah, believes Raamses to be identical with Heliopolis, which was formerly called On. But it appears from the Septuagint that Raamses and Heliopolis are two different towns. According to Niebuhr (Travels, i. p. 97), a village of the name of Ramsis is still to be found between Cairo and Alexandria; so also Champollion. But the towns mentioned in our text cannot have been situated on the west of the Nile, as no crossing over this river is related in the history of the Exodus of the Israelites. Some writers believe Raamses to be Heroopolis, but without any positive proof, merely leaning on the Septuagint version of Gen. xlvi. 28, 29. Lepsius (Letters from Egypt, etc. p. 438) remarks, "That we really have to seek for Rameses in the ruins of Abu-Keshed (north-east of Heliopolis) is most decidedly confirmed by a monument which was found among those very ruins as early as the time of the French expedition. It is a group of three figures cut out of a granite block representing the gods Ra and Tum, and between them the king Ramses II. (Ramses-Miamus, who begun the canal)." The Jerusalem Targum calls the two towns of our text Tanis and Pelusium, but both lie beyond