the shepherd kings. It holds that they were in the height of their power in Egypt in the time of Joseph, and that the change which eventually took place in the treatment of the Israelites settled in Goshen, arose from the expulsion of the intrusive dynasty, and the succession of the native sovereign, who would naturally regard the Israelites as merely a branch of the same obnoxious race. Although we cannot receive this view, we have no desire to underrate the learning and ability with which it has been supported. It has, however, this fault, that we cannot reconcile it so well as we can the other with the facts of Scripture, and that it does not satisfactorily meet any one of the requisites which we have described as originally recommending the earlier date to our preference.

As the English reader has not had much opportunity of becoming acquainted with the grounds on which the latter date is advocated, the leading points may be stated for his information. Since, however, the statements of this view by different writers vary in circumstances, we shall chiefly follow that of a German writer by whom it has been most ably advocated.1

On the assumption, then, that the king who knew not Joseph was the first native king who reigned after the expulsion of the shepherds, who had dominated over the country for 260 years, it is held that the shepherds were Shemites, descended probably from Eber, and allied to the Israelites in spirit, language, and occupation, which very circumstance would make the latter hateful to the Egyptians. This agrees with the apprehensions of Pharaoh, that the Israelites, who had become exceedingly numerous, might avail themselves of the occasion of a war to leave the country, and increase the number of hostile neighbours."

The settlement of the Israelites in Egypt must, if this view

1 JOST, in his General History of the Israelitish People (Allgemeine Geschichte des Israelitischen Volks). It is also advocated by HEEREN in his Historical Researches (Ideen, etc.); and by M. D. J. M. HENRY in his Pharaonic Egypt (L'Egypte Pharaonique).

2 Ex. i. 10.

be correct, have taken place soon after the commencement of that dynasty. This is deemed to be corroborated by the narrative of Joseph, which supposes the reader to be acquainted with Egyptian history. In the first place, the term Hebrew is applied, without immediate reference to Israel, whose family was small, to the whole body of the shepherd people, who were much hated by the Egyptians. This agrees, it is urged, with the opinion that they had conquered the country, and that the ruling monarchs were selected from their number, and forced upon the people, by whom they were held in detestation, though they did accommodate themselves to Egyptian usages.

It is next urged, that it was only under a foreign dynasty in such circumstances that Joseph could have been raised to distinction. Hence the cup-bearer mentions him as a Hebrew youth, able to interpret dreams; and hence the king, of the same stock originally, determined to send for him, as the Egyptian wise men gave him no satisfaction. The advice of Joseph was gladly taken, because the king perceived immediately that the establishment and independence of the people would be promoted by it. To have a Hebrew in his service as administrator of the kingdom, would be agreeable to his dependants; and his foes, the priests, were conciliated by being exempted from civil burdens, and secured in their revenues. And although he conferred the right of citizenship on Joseph, giving him an Egyptian name, and bringing about his marriage with the daughter of a priest of the sun, yet he did not venture to violate the feelings of the people, and Joseph did not sit at the same table with the Egyptian lords, because they would not eat with the shepherd race.

Again, when Joseph's brethren came to Egypt, they undoubtedly recognised him as a Hebrew, for his story must have been generally known; but it never occurred to them that he was their brother whom they had sold, for there were certainly many Hebrews in the land, and some of them men of distinction. He confirmed their error by employing an interpreter. It is only on this supposition that he could affect to

1 Gen. xxxix. 14, xl. 15, xli. 12, xliii. 32; Ex. i. 16, iii. 18.

regard his ten brethren as spies; for while the shepherd race held the power, it is very conceivable that their jealousy should be excited by the apprehension of further inroads from the same stock. Such a feigned charge, preferred by a governor acting under the authority of a really Egyptian family, would be altogether inexplicable.

Lastly, it is stated that Pharaoh was pleased with the account of Joseph's family. But were he an Egyptian, would he have allowed such men, hateful to his people, to settle in Egypt? On the contrary, if he himself were of the same stock, his own satisfaction and that of his courtiers is what might be expected from the characteristic hospitality of the race. Thus the Israelites were connected with the government, but hated by the Egyptian people. The remains of Jacob were embalmed, and, agreeably to his last will, committed to his own sepulchre, accompanied by many Egyptian lords,-solemnities which it is not to be supposed that the enemies of the shepherd race would have allowed. The place in Canaan where the mourning ceremonies of the funeral were performed, was called by the inhabitants Abel Mizraim (mourning of the Egyptians), not necessarily because they were really Egyptians, but because they came from Egypt, and the ceremonies were conducted in the manner of that country.

That among these various suggestions there are none of any weight, it would be too much to say; but we grievously miscalculate the penetration of our readers, if they will not be able of themselves to disprove most of these arguments, on the basis of the indications we have already afforded. It will not fail to be seen that the state of feeling which, according to all but such as adopt this view, arose out of the long and oppressive occupation of the land by the shepherds, is throughout quietly assumed not only to have existed, but to have been manifested even at court, during the period of their sovereignty, and indeed at a period which must have been very soon after its commencement. It will also be perceived that even the most probable of the facts adduced become more probable still under the explanation that the court of Egypt in the time

of Joseph was native Egyptian, the intrusive pastoral dynasty having been then expelled. Even the circumstance that Joseph affected to take his brethren for spies, which is triumphantly alleged to be inexplicable under a native dynasty, is, in fact, more easily explained under the hypothesis that such a dynasty reigned; for if the shepherds had been at a recent date driven out of the country, it was quite natural that a careful watch should be kept over persons of the same order entering the land, who might be suspected of some attempt that might be made by the expelled pastoral tribes to recover the power they had lost. It may also be remarked, that the assertion that Joseph and his family, though favoured by the court, were hated by the people, is not only unsupported by Scripture, but is at variance with the general tendency of its intimations. Look, for instance, at Deut. xxiii. 7, 'Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land;' a passage which is justly held by Hengstenberg to imply that the Israelites received in some respects better treatment from individuals of the Egyptians than from the state; so that the Israelites had cause for grateful regard to them in return, since the phrase 'because thou wast a stranger in his land' is not a sufficient reason for the command, 'Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian,' unless it means that the Egyptians performed the offices of hospitality to the Israelites, and earned for themselves the claim of reciprocity.

It seems to us that the disposition to assign the later date to the shepherd dynasty of Egypt, has arisen from the wish to account in what might seem the most satisfactory manner for the change of policy which took place when a dynasty, comparatively insensible to the ancient services of Joseph, came into power in Lower Egypt. But this is sufficiently accounted for by the succession of a king from the upper country, who had previously reigned in the distant province of Thebes, and who would be naturally inclined to look upon the Hebrews with the same distrust and contempt with which foreigners, and especially pastoral foreigners, were usually treated by the Egyptians. Accordingly it is at this time, sixty years after the

in like manner, and girded up their dress.' Diodorus gives substantially the same account, but adds, that they went about the streets in this manner until the body was buried; that they abstained from all pleasant and ordinary food, and also neglected their persons, and appeared in sordid raiment. Many of these ceremonies of mourning have been inherited by the modern Egyptians.

The embalmment of the body prevented the need of haste in the actual interment. It was not, therefore, until the seventy days of general mourning had expired, that Joseph applied for permission to carry the body of his father for burial to the land of Canaan, alleging that Jacob had on his deathbed made him swear to do so. The king's answer, 'Go up and bury thy father, as he made thee swear,' gives us reason to suspect that but for this oath he would have hesitated to allow Joseph to depart. On this the Jewish annotator, Dr M. J. Raphall, remarks: 'Jacob's foresight, prudence, and worldly wisdom appear unimpaired, when he is at the brink of the grave. He knows that the jealousy with which foreigners are regarded in Egypt, is strongly against their quitting the country after they have once been permitted to reside in it, and that communication with or return to Canaan might be considered particularly objectionable. He therefore exacts from Joseph an oath, which he knows the religious feelings and scruples of the Egyptians will not call upon him to violate. Thus Jacob not only secures his end, but Joseph stands exonerated from all blame, as the

VOL. I.

2 E