1 Engl. Vers.-Rod.

hands from the Nile to fertilize the fields"). After the inundation of the Nile there remain near its shores numerous ponds, marshes, and pools. This term may also include the lakes of Egypt, partly the work of nature, partly artificially formed, serving as great receptacles of water, in which at the rising of the Nile the superfluous water was colJected and preserved for future use. Rashi explains justly stagnant waters, and adds as a translation: étangs, lakes. Such lakes, as those famous under the name of Moeris and Mareotis, are mostly overgrown with reeds, and full of fowl and fish. The gatherings of water, lastly, are all wells, and especially water-reservoirs or cisterns, such as are found near houses or mosques. Such a large cistern was formerly in Alexandria, into which the water was led through a canal constructed for the purpose, and which supplied the town with drinkable water throughout the year (see Thevenot i. p. 173).—Both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone; and quite so translates Onkelos. The Egyptians keep the water of the Nile in vessels of wood, or more frequently of clay and stone, especially for the purpose of filtration, so necessary in consequence of the many heterogeneous and impure parts it originally contains (Jerom. on Isaiah xxiii. 3; Pococke, Orient i. 312; Burckhardt, Travels ii. 778). Thus it is emphatically announced, that the water would be converted into blood throughout all the land of Egypt, even that which was already in the houses of the Egyptians. literal translation of the Hebrew words here used is: "in woods and in stones," which is certainly obscure, and would

The

almost be unintelligible, if we did not consider, that this whole account is written by a native Egyptian, and for a people, every member of which was perfectly familiar with all the customs and usages of that country.

20, 21. In the 20th verse the infliction of the first plague is plainly expressed: And all the waters in the river were turned into blood; and in the subsequent verse its effects are as clearly described, perfectly in harmony with ver. 18.- He lifted up, namely, Aaron, which the Sept. adds (see ver. 19). Proceeding from the principle laid down as the general character of the Egyptian wonders, that they have a certain obvious connection with apparent natural phenomena, aggrandized to a prodigious extent (see p. 88), we observe, that according to the unanimous descriptions of geographers, the water of the Nile, annually towards the end of the month of June, when the river rises, changes for about twenty days its colour, which is usually dark and almost black (wherefore the Nile is poetically called "the black river," Isaiah xxiii. 3;) and assumes a red appearance, which gradually passes into a greenish colour; and thus during this time the water of the Nile has a disagreeable smell, and an unwholesome taste, although it is not always absolutely undrinkable; whilst in some years it is exceedingly loathsome and unhealthy. Similar phenomena are reported of other rivers also; for instance, the Tigris which is said to have streamed with blood; further of the river Adonis (now called Nahar Ibrahim), coming from the Lebanon, which imparts for a considerable distance a red colour even to the sea into which it flows

(Maundrell, Trav. p. 35; see also Vogel's Annals of Leipsic, p. 460, where it is narrated that the water of the Elster appeared during four days, from the 15th to the 19th of October, 1631, red like blood). Ehrenberg found the whole bay of the Red Sea in the vicinity of Mount Sinai appearing like blood, in consequence of cryptogamic plants abounding in that part of the sea. By others the redness is ascribed to the particles of red clay, which the Nile, at its rising, carries with it from Ethiopia (so Pococke, Maillet, Maundrell, Le Père aîné), or to the innumerable little red insects which fill the Nile about that season. Now, the wonder recorded in our text consists in the following circumstances: 1. That this event did not take place in June, in natural course but in the beginning of the year. For the hail mentioned in ix. 31, destroyed the flax and barley. These crops are in Egypt generally ripe for harvest in April; but the rise of the Nile does not begin in so early a part of the year; and certainly the rapid sketch of the plagues delineated in the holy text, obliges us to suppose that all ten inflictions took place in the same year; for they must have followed in quick succession if they were to arouse the undivided attention of the king, and to strike terror into his heart. 2. That the plague took place on the command of God through Moses; 3. That the Nile did not merely assume a red or bloody colour, but was totally converted into blood (see on ver. 17); 4. That all fish died; whilst ordinarily this does not take place at the change of the colour of the Nile (the opinion of Eichhorn to the contrary is a perfectly unfounded assertion);

5. That even the water which was in the vessels was affected by the plague (ver. 19); 6. The Israelites enjoyed pure water during the calamity; for, according to ver. 24, the Egyptians only dug after wells; and Josephus remarks distinctly: "The water of the Nile was disagreeable and unwholesome to the Egyptians, whilst it was sweet and palatable to the Hebrews, nor in any way different from its natural quality"; and Targum Jonathan adds, on ver. 22, that the Egyptian magicians took water from Goshen for their experiment; and 7. That the change lasted only seven days, whilst travellers maintain, that it usually extends during twenty days and more. In 1673 it retained the red colour from the beginning of July to the end of December. But Abarbanel, and Hengstenberg connect, less probably, ver. 25 closely with ver. 26, and assert that the text simply intimates, that seven days after the beginning of the first plague, concerning the conclusion of which nothing is stated in the text, the second was announced. Perfectly inadmissible is, therefore, the opinion of Eichhorn, that this, like all other signs of Moses, is literally nothing more than the natural annual occurrence; and that Moses, in order to impress Pharaoh with the extraordinary power bestowed upon him by the Almighty God of the Hebrews, took some water from the Nile, changed it by some chemical contrivance into a red colour, and exhorted Pharaoh, that the same God, by whose aid he had now converted the water before him into a bloody fluid, produced every year the similar effect upon all the water of the Nile. But 1. the dying of the fish in the Nile would be inexplicable; 2. this would

1 Engl. Vers.-Magicians.

merely have been a harmless and innocuous sign (like that related in iv. 9. for the justification of Moses), whilst it is intended as a plague (ver. 4); and 3. according to the sacred text not a vessel filled with water, but the whole Nile underwent the fatal change.

22. And the Egyptian interpreters of secret signs did so, etc. Ebn Ezra already asks: "From where did the magicians take water for the performance of their experiment, as all the water had been converted into blood ?" (ver. 20), and he answers, that Aaron changed only the water above the earth, not that beneath it; and so they might dig for water in the earth, as the Egyptians did for the purpose of finding drinkable water (ver. 24). Besides, there was, in Goshen, the district of the Hebrews, water which was not affected by the plague, and Targum Jonathan says here, distinctly, that the magicians took the water from Goshen; see on ver. 20, No. 6. Others (as Hengstenberg and Gerlach) assert, with less plausibility, that the word all (in ver. 20) is not to be taken quite literally. Nor can we accede to the opinion of many interpreters, among whom is Ebn Ezra, that the Hebrews were likewise smitten with the plagues of blood, the frogs, gnats, boils and locusts, "because they were not so dangerous and fatal as the rest.' But still they were plagues, intended and calculated to terrify and annoy Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and how should the Israelites, in whose favour these punishments were inflicted

"

2 Enchantments.

upon their adversaries, have suffered the same calamities as the latter? Still less acceptable is the opinion of Clericus, Philippson, and others, that Moses and Aaron, after having converted the water into blood, changed it again into its original condition and colour, in order to afford to the magicians an opportunity for displaying their arts. There is, further, that important and essential difference between the miracles of Moses, and the feats of the magicians, that, whilst the former converted the water of the whole Nile, with all its arms and canals, and permanently changing floods, even where he could not see it, and made it remain in this state for at least seven days (ver. 25); the latter were only able to produce a similar effect upon a very small quantity of stagnant water, which they had before their eyes in a vessel, and which remained so only during the few moments of the experiment, until the king returned home (ver. 23). It is further to be remarked, that although th magicians changed the water into blood, they could not convert the blood again into water.

23. Neither did he direct his heart to this also, referring to the first sign of Aaron's serpent devouring the serpents of the magicians.

24. And the Egyptians digged for water, not the Hebrews; see on verses 20 (No. 6) and 22. The water, which the Hebrews kept in their own vessels of wood and vessels of stone (see on ver. 19), might have remained untouched by the plague,

and this supply probably sufficed for seven days (ver. 25). Thus is easily removed the objection of Drusius (acknowledged by Rosenmüller), why it was necessary to dig after water, if that of the Hebrews was not vitiated, as the latter lived together with the Egyptians in the same districts and towns, in which, therefore, the plague did not prevail, whence it follows, that not the whole country was affected by the calamity, against the express words of Moses.Jonathan, in order to enhance the miracle, adds: "but they did not find clear water." However it was a sufficient punishment for them to be deprived, during seven days, of the delightful waters of the Nile, and to content themselves with the very disagreeable and thick waters of the Egyptian wells (see ver. 18).

25. And seven days were fulfilled after the Lord had smitten the river. These words evidently describe the duration of the first plague, a statement not made with reference to any of the subsequent fictions. Luther translates here, the ost distinctly, ("Und das währte sieben

Tage lang dass der Herr den Strom schlug;") and Targum Onkelos adds: "and afterwards the word of the Lord remedied the river." Abarbanel gives, besides, three other explanations: 1st. These words are added to show the refractoriness of Pharaoh, who was not, even by the continuance of the plague during so protracted a time, forced to obedience and humility;-2nd. They indicate the long-suffering of God, who allowed Pharaoh rest during seven days after the first plague, in order to grant him time for reflection and repentance;3rd. They are to be connected with the following verse: Seven days after the change of the Nile God announced to Pharaoh the second plague: so that the first calamity might have lasted even longer than seven days (compare vi. 28, 29): which interpretation is also adopted by Eichhorn, Hengstenberg, Gerlach, and others, desirous to bring into agreement the natural and usual change of the Nile, generally extending during at least twenty days, with the facts here related; see however, on ver. 20, No. 7.

described in our text; it would perfectly destroy the gradual climax of the wonders, and would be appropriate rather as the ninth than as the second plague.

28, 29. And they shall come up, namely, from the Nile, which was considered lying lower than the town. -And in thy ovens. So great was the number of frogs, that they penetrated into the dryest places, which they other

H

wise avoid, and in which, if found there by the Egyptians, they must have excited the greatest disgust. The proper baking-ovens which are generally for public use in Oriental cities, are little different from ours. But, in remoter times already, were also used large earthen pots, open at the top, about three feet high. A fire is lighted within, generally with wood; then, if the sides are sufficiently heated, the dough is affixed to them from without, and the aperture above covered. At present, the following is the usual mode of making bread among the Arab tribes which remain for a longer time in the same place: "They make rude ovens by digging a hole about three feet deep, shaping it like a reversed funnel, and plastering it with mud. They heat it by burning brushwood within, and then stick the lumps of dough, pressed into small cakes almost half an inch thick, to the sides, with the hand. The bread is ready in two or three minutes. . . . . All Arab bread is unleavened" (Layard, Discoveries in Nineveh and Babylon, p. 288). The Samaritan codex has here again unnecessarily, as after verse 18, the words: "and Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh, and they said to him, Thus speaks the Lord," and then it repeats from verse 26-29.-If we compare the respective effects of the two first plagues, it is evident that the second is of a far more tormenting and calamitous nature. For whilst during the first plague the Egyptians had at least water from the wells, however inferior this is to that of the Nile, the frogs filled not only the rivers and all waters-thus including the first plague-they not only infested the streets and houses of the Egyptians, but they molested even their persons, penetrated into their bed-chambers, and disturbed their sleep. If we add hereto, that, under such circumstances, even the water must have been singularly loathsome; that the whole atmosphere must

....

have been infected with a fetid smell; that the incessant inharmonious noise dinned perpetually in the ears, allowing them no rest either by day or night; that Pharaoh humbled himself so far as to request Moses and Aaron to pray for the removal of the plague, and to promise the release of the Israelites, and that even the destruction of those animals was attended with a pestilential odour: it will be easily conceived that there is a gradation even in the two first plagues, overwhelming enough to convince even a haughty and obstinate tyrant with what powerful Being he had madly engaged in warfare, and what chastisements were still in reserve against his refractoriness. That frogs can, by their number, become a plague, is confirmed by several ancient writers, as Just. xv. 2, who relates, that the Autariatae were compelled to leave their abodes because the frogs had multiplied to a prodigious amount, and Phaenias, a disciple of Aristotle, writes thus, on a similar case: "In Paeonia and Dardania appeared once, suddenly, such numbers of frogs, that they filled the houses and streets. Therefore, as killing them, or shutting the doors, was of no avail, as even the vessels were full of them, the water infested, and the food uneatable, as they could scarcely set th feet on the ground without treading heaps of them, and as they were ve by the smell of the great numbers wh died, they fled from that region, as is reported" (Eusthatius in Hom. Il. A. p. 35); compare Pliny, viii. 43; Aelian, xvii. 41. We subjoin an interesting description of a similar plague, which occurred in Egypt, from Quatremère, i. p. 121, who follows an account of Macrizi: "In the year 791, and in the subsequent years, the reptiles fatal to books, and wool-stuffs, increased in a miraculous degree. A trustworthy man assured me that these animals ate and spoiled 1,500 pieces of his stuffs, being more than fifteen camel loads. I con