HIII ST 0 II.   Y
THE OLD COVENANT
FRO3M THE GERTIAN OF,1,If. KUJTZ, D.),,
P".FiOESSOl, OF TIT[EOI- 0T (A- 1AOT Il'Ai,
VOL, I[,'RANSL-ITED
11 Y i JAM    S  MLA    TI. i-,T': B A?NO)T'rINCT V1i.,
PHILADELPHIA:
LINDSAY A ND BI AKISTON,
1 8 5 90








CONTENTS OF VOL. II.
THIRD STAGE IN THE HISTORY OF THE FAMILY.
JACOB.
Page.
Removal of the House of Israel to Egypt,.            1
Adoption of Joseph's Sons,.                                      21
Jacob's Prophetic Blessing on his Sons,.                     27
Death of Jacob and Joseph,.                     88
GENERAL SURVEY OF THE PATRIARCHAL AGE.
Revelation, Religion, and General Culture in the time of the Patriarchs,  97
SECOND STAGE IN THE HISTORY OF THE COVENANT,
THE NATION: ITS INSTITUTIONS IN THE TIME OF MOSES.
Extent, Character, and Importance of this Stage in the History of
the Ancient Covenant,....                 119
Scene of the History,...                 123
FIRST STEP TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATION.
ISRAEL'S SOJOURN IN EGYPT;
OR THE PREPARATION OF THE PEOPLE OF THE COVENANT,
A PERIOD OF 430 YEARS.
Condition of the Israelites and Development of the Nation during
the Period spent in Egypt,.                                   133
Birth and Education of Moses,...                       181
The Call of Moses,.                       198
First Appeatrance of Moses in Egypt,.                 224
The Signs and Wonders in Egypt,.   246
The Passover,...                                     288
The Exodus from Egypt,.                           311
Passage through the Red Sea, and Destruction of Pharaoh,           339
Geographical Introduction to the Exodus,...   360
The Hyksos and the Israelites,...   380








INDEX OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES TREATED OF IN THIlS
VOLUME.
Page.                                  Page.
Gen. xlvi.-xlvii. 12,          i    1 Exod. vii. 14-2.5,                 269
Gen. xlvii. 27-xlviii. 22,         21  Exod. viii. 1-15,                 274
Gen. xlix. 1-28,                   27  Exod. viii, 16-19,,              276
Gen. xlix. 28-1. 26,.        88  Exod, viii. 20-32,,       278
Exod. i.,                         133  Exod. ix. 1-12,.              280
1 Chr. vii. 20-24,.       177  Exod. ix. 13 —x. 29,              283
Exod. ii. 1-22, vi.!6 —25,       181  Exod. xi. 1-10,.               288
Exod ii. 23-iv. 17,               198  Exod, xii. 1-28,.       295
Exod. iv. 18-31,   224  Exod. xii. 29 —xiii. 16,                         311
Exod. v,, vi..       242  Exod. xiii. 17-xv. 21; Num,
Exod. vii. 1- 7,                 245       xxxiii. 3-8,.              339
Exod. vii. 8-13,                 2569








THE OLD COVENANT.
REMOVAL OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL TO EGYPT.
~ 1. (Gen. xlvi. xlvii. 12).-The report that Joseph was
still alive, and was ruler over all the land of Egypt, was lil-e a
fable to his aged father Jacob; and it was not till he saw the
Egyptian waggons that he could be convinced that it was true.
"' It is enough," he then exclaimed, " Joseph my son is yet alive,
I will go and see him before I die." Well versed as he was in
the ways of God, the old man could recognise at once the call of
Jehovah in the invitation of Joseph.  He therefore went to
Egypt without delay. He stopped at the border of the land of
his pilgrimage, which was also the promised land, to offer a
sacrifice to the God of his fathers; and God appeared to him in a
dream.  " Fear not," he said, " to go down to Egypt, for I will
there make of thee a great nation. I will go down with thee
into Egypt, I will also surely bring thee up again, and Joseph
shall close thine eyes" (1). The whole house of Jacob, with
their wives, their children and grand-children, and all their possessions (2), then went down to Egypt in Pharaoh's waggons. (3)
Judah was sent forward to announce their approach to Joseph,
who hastened to meet his father, "and wept on his neck a good
while." He then procured from the king the formal and official
sanction to his plans, and presented five of his brethren to
Pharaoh, who willingly gave them the required permission to
live as strangers and immigrants (4) in the land of Goshen (5),
which was so peculiarly suited to their nomad life. As a further
proof of his confidence, he instructed Joseph to give his own
cattle into the charge of the most able members of his family.
VOL. II.                                  A




2                          JACOB.
At a later period Joseph introduced his aged father to the king.
The hoary-headed pilgrim blessed the king, and replied to his
friendly enquiry as to his age: " The days of the years of my
pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty years; few and evil have
the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto
the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their
pilgrimage" (6).
(1). There seems to have been always a strong inclination in
the minds of the patriarchs to turn, they probably knew not why,
towards Egypt, the fairy land of wealth, of culture, and of
wisdom. This bias appears in all the three, but it was only in
the case of Jacob that the inclination of the heart coincided
with the call of God. Abraham  actually went there, but the
result taught him a lesson (~ 52); Isaac was restrained by God,
just as he reached the frontier (~ 71); at last Jacob turned his
steps in the same direction, and Jehovah appeared to him on
the border of the land, to assure him that his course was pleasing to God.
In the history of the Old Testament, so long as it evinced
any life and progress, we detect a constant disposition to coalesce
with heathenism; and it was not till Israel had so hardened
itself, that any further development was impossible, and had
sacrificed its lofty, world-wide destiny for exclusiveness of the
most absolute and contracted kind, that the inclination ceased
to exist. There was truth at the foundation of this disposition,
viz., a consciousness on the part of Israel of its relation to the
world, and a presentiment of the fact that, whilst it was to infuse new life into heathenism  from  the fulness of its divine
inheritance, it would also require to draw supplies from the
culture of heathenism, that is, of the world.  But in most cases
the inclination was manifested in a thoughtless way, and therefore
in ungodly, perverse, and injurious efforts. We find indications
of this disposition as early as the days of the patriarchs, and in
their case it was associated with the same truth and the same
rashness.  At that time it turned exclusively to Egypt, which
was then and for a long time afterwards the only representative
and type of earthly power, wealth, and civilisation. The rashness
is seen in Abraham and Isaac, the truth appears first in Jacob.




REMOVAL OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL TO EGYPT.          3
It was not till the days of Jacob that the promised seed attained
to such maturity as to render a certain amount of intercourse
with heathenism both desirable and useful.
The first stage in the covenant history was drawing to an end,
and Israel was preparing to enter upon a second.   They left
Canaan as a family, to return to it a peoplle. As a family they
had done their work and accomplished their end, viz., to exhibit
the foundations on which national life is based.  Henceforth
their task would be to show how the basis of the world's history,
in its widest form; is to be found within the nation.  The two
epochs, the growth of the family and that of the nation, stood in
the same relation to each other as two concentric circles.  The
force of the common centre, from which the circumference of
each is generated, gives to the two circles analogous forms.
And this central creative power was the divine decree, on which
Israel's history rested and by which it was sustained.  At the
conclusion of its entire history Israel was to enter into association
with heathenism, in order that its all-embracing destiny might
(to a certain extent) be fulfilled by its receiving from the latter
the goods of this world, human wisdom and culture; and, on the
other hand, by its imparting to the heathen the abundance of its
spiritual possessions, the result of all the revelations and instructions which it had received from God.  And thus also at
the period under review, when the first stage of its history was
drawing to a close, Israel joined with Egypt, the best representative of heathenism, bringing to Egypt deliverance from  its
troubles, through the wisdom of God with which it was endowed,
and enriching itself with the wealth, the wisdom, and the culture
of that land.  Thus was it prepared to enter upon a new stage
of its history, a stage of far wider extent and greater importance.
Vid. ~ 92, 7.
It was not merely a vague surmise in Jacob's mind, which led
him to the conclusion that the time had arrived for yielding to
the inclination to go to Egypt, and that this inclination was
confirmed and sanctified by a call from God. All the previous
leadings of God combined to make this clear and certain, even
without any express permission or direction on His part now.
The remarkable course of Joseph's history, no less than Joseph's
dreams, which the issue had shown to be from God, and the
pressure of the existing famine, prevented any other conclusion
A2




4                        JACOB.
than that the invitation of Joseph was a divine call.  And this
opinion was expressly confirmed by the previous revelation made
to Abraham, that his seed would sojourn in a foreign land four
hundred years. (Gen. xv. 13 sqq.)
Still the road which Jacob took was a painful path to him.
He could not forsake the land, which had been the scene of all
his wanderings, the object of all his hopes, and was still the land
of promise, without hesitation and anxiety, especially as he could
not shut his eyes to the fact that he should never tread it again.
Once already he had been obliged to leave this promised land,
and did so with a heavy heart (~ 75).  But Jehovah had
appeared to him at Bethel then, and consoled him with the
assurance that he would bring him back with abundant blessings.  Nor was a similar consolation wanting here.  Jehovah
promised that he would go down with him into Egypt, and bring
him (meaning, of course, his descendants) back again to the
land of his fathers. And even in Egypt the twofold object of all
His previous leadings, viz., the promised land and the promised
seed, would not be forgotten.  On the contrary, the final intention of the whole should be realised there; " for," said the Lord,
" there will I make of thee a great nation."
(2). The catalogue of the house of Israel, which came into
Egypt, as given in Geen. xlvi. 8-27, presents several points of
difficulty that we must not pass over. First, the direct descendants from Jacob who migrated to Egypt are said in ver. 27 to
have numbered seventy souls. They are reckoned according to
their mothers, thirty-three being assigned to Leah (ver. 15),
sixteen to Zilpah (ver. 18), fourteen to Rachel (ver. 22), and seven
to Bilhah (ver. 25).   V. Lengerke (i. 347 sqq.) endeavours to
prove that the number 70 is merely a round and approximate
number, and throws the statements of the text into such strange
confusion, that he succeeds in introducing several discrepancies
into a list which is otherwise straightforward and plain.  He
first takes Leah's descendants in hand, and finds it impossible to
arrive at the number 33. If Er and Onan, who died in Canaan
(ver. 12), are included, there are 34 names; and if they are
omitted, the catalogue contains only 32.  But it is expressly
stated in vers. 8 and 26 that Jacob, the head of the family, is
reckoned as one of the 70 souls, and as he is placed in ver. 8 at
the head of the catalogue of the children of Leah, it can be




REMOVAL OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL TO EGYPT.        5
nothing but a spirit of contradiction, that leads any one to insist
upon so literal an interpretation of ver. 14 as to seek for the names
of exactly 33 sons or descendants of Leah. If Jacob is to be
reckoned as one of the 70, the only appropriate place in which
his name could stand is at the head of the catalogue of the children of Leah, his proper and lawful wife. There is still greater
confusion in v. Lengerke's further remark (p. 240) that " the
numbers given in vers. 18, 22, and 25 are correct, but in ver. 26
the number 66 is a round and approximate number; for 33 +
16 + 14 + 7 amount to exactly 70, and according to ver. 27 this
number is only arrived at by the addition of Jacob, Joseph,
Ephraim, and Manasseh."  This is strange.  In ver. 8 Jacob is
reckoned as one ofthe 33, and in vers. 19, 20 Joseph, Ephraim,
and Manasseh form part of the 14; so that, as a matter of course,
if they are deducted from the whole number, as is the case in
ver. 26, there will be only 66 remaining.
Again, the statement that the children of Israel " which came
into Egypt" were numbered (vers. 8 and 26), appears to differ in
several respects from the previous history. It would be easy to
offer a complete defence of the general terms employed in ver. 8,
where Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh, who were already in
Egypt, are apparently reckoned among those who had just arrived
there, even if they had not been so expressly excepted in vers.
20 and 26 as to prevent any possibility of mistake; for the
writer's point of view led him to regard the emigration of Joseph
and his sons into Egypt as not actually completed until the whole
house, of which they were members, had formally settled there.
Previous to that settlement Egypt was merely a casual resting
place, and Canaan their true and proper home.  But we meet
with real difficulties of another kind.  Benjamin, who comes
before us as a youth throughout the history of Joseph (see for
example Gen. xliii. 29), and who was not more than twenty-four
years old, according to the existing chronological data, had as
many as ten sons (ver. 21). Reuben, who is spoken of as having
only two sons when they went to Egypt the second time (chap.
xlii. 37), had now four (ver. 9). Pharez, the son of Judah by
Tamar, had two sons (ver. 11), a fact which seems absolutely
irreconcileable with the results arrived at in vol. i. ~ 86. And it
is very improbable, to say the least, that Jacob's two great-grandsons, the children of B'riah, the youngest son of Asher, were born




6                         JACOB.
in Canaan (v. 17), since their grandfather Asher was only forty
years old at the period of the emigration, and therefore his
youngest son B'riah must have been a mere boy.   With so
many circumstances leading to the same conclusion, we need
not hesitate to adopt the explanation that the words of ver. 26,
" all the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt," are used in so
general a sense as to embrace those grandsons and great-grandsons whose birth must have fallen in the period subsequent to
the emigration.
Hegigstenberg (Pentateuch vol. ii. 284 sqq. trans.) has entered
thoroughly into an examination of the difficulty referred to, and
solves it on the ground that the grandsons and great-grandsons
of Jacob, though not yet born, were in their fathers, and therefore entered Egypt with them.  Objections have been raised to
this interpretation from various quarters, but we must still
adhere to it.  Lenygerke talks about the " orthodox in luembis," but
will not affirm that the objection is sufficient to set it aside.
The view referred to, which sees in the father the ensemble of his
descendants, is common to the whole of the Old Testament. We
find it repeatedly in the promises of God to Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, "I will give thee the land;" " in thee shall all nations of
the earth be blessed;" " thou shalt be a blessing," &c.; and in
the section before us there are unmistakeable examples of it: " I
will bring thee up again," ver. 4, (evidently not the individual
person of Jacob, but his descendants, who were not yet in existence, and of whom Jacob was the one representative.)  Why
then should not the same writer, or even another, be able to say
from the same point of view that the sons of Benjamin and
Pharez went dozwn in their fathers to Egypt?  And, " just as
Joseph's sons, though born in Egypt, are reckoned among the
souls who came to Egypt, because in their father they had come
thither, so also may these descendants of Jacob who came to
Egypt in their fathers be regarded as having come with Jacob
thither."
The reasons already assigned serve to show that such an explanation is both admissible and necessary, and the following
data heighten its probability.  1. In the list of the families of
Israel, which was prepared in the last year of the journey through
the desert (Num. xxvi.), there are no grandsons of Jacob mentioned besides those named in Gen. xlvi.  " It is difficult to




REMOVAL OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL TO EGYPT.        7
explain this if the arrival in Egypt spoken of in Gen. xlvi. is to
be taken precisely as a terminaus ad qzuem.  Are we to suppose,
then, that there were no children born to Jacob's sons in the
land of Egypt?"  2. In chap. xlvi. 5, where there is no question
of genealogy, and the individuals emigrating are described from
a historical point of view, we read, not of the grandchildren of
Jacob's sons, but merely of their children, who are described as little
ones. 3. In the case of Hezron and Hamuel (ver. 12) the author
appears desirous of intimating that they were not born in Canaan,
and that he regarded them as substitutes for Er and Onan, who
had died there. Venema has expressed the same opinion. Thus he
says (i. 121): " It is probable that the sons of Pharez who were
born in Egypt are mentioned, because they were substituted for
the two sons of Judah who died in Canaan.  The historian clearly
asserts as much, and when he adds that the latter died in the
land of Canaan, he plainly implies that the sons of Pharez, who
were put in their place, had not been born there."
Baumgarten (i. 316, 334, 350 seq.) has taken a most decided
stand in opposition to Hengstenzberg. In his anxiety to establish
the literal historical accuracy of the genealogy in chap. xlvi. he
does violence in a most unscrupulous manner to the previous
history and the chronological data afforded by it, and crowds
together not merely improbabilities but impossibilities also.
(See the remarks in ~ 86).  He is of opinion that with Hengstenberg's explanation " the entire list loses its objective worth
and its historical importance; and if such were regarded as
sufficient reasons for inserting in the catalogue those who were
not born till afterwards, there was no definite limit at all, and
the contrast between 70 souls who entered Egypt and 600,000
who left it, on which such stress is laid in Deut. x. 22, loses all
its force."'
This argument proceeds upon a misunderstanding and nmisinterpretation of the historiographical idea and design of the
document.  Baumgarten overlooks the fact that we have here
not really a historical account, but a genealogical table; and
that whilst any looseness of expression would be inadmissible in
the former, it is not so in the latter.  Besides, it is not correct
that the insertion of a few of those who were born in Egypt was
an arbitrary proceeding, and that there were no essential limits
to determine the selection.  Not only Awere there such. limits, but




8                         JACOB.
they are most clearly defined; for the only grandsons or greats
grandsons of Jacob whom we find in the list are those whose
descendants formed a separate family (F'Dtdjr_ n) in Israel.  As
a general rule the sons of Jacob were the heads of tribes, and the
grandsons the heads offarmilies. The outward unity of the family
of Jacob, theirexistence as a common household, was not disturbed
by his sons; but it could not but be disturbed by his grandsons.
From outward considerations this became inevitable as soon as
they attained their majority; and their separate establishments
formed the first step in the transition from a family to a people.
Now, it was evidently the intention of the author of the book of
Genesis, to trace the early history of the nation of Israel up to
that point, in which the children of Israel began to lay aside
their character as a family, and assume the characteristics of a
people. And if we endeavour to assign some definite epoch to
this change, there is none which we can fix upon but the removal
to Egypt.   For, as we shall afterwards show, the principal
intention of that removal was to facilitate the transition from a
family to a people, and to secure it against interruption.  And
it was just about this time that Jacob's family reached the third
stage, in which the  ishpachoth (or families) originated.  A few
exceptions might be found, but they could very well be sacrificed
to the general validity of the rule and the great importance of
the event in question.  The task of the author was to trace
the history of the descendants of Jacob up to that point in which
they began to form separate Jlishpaclhoth (families).  And thus
we have a limit, both thoroughly objective and sharply defined.
It was not accident and caprice, therefore, but objective historical conditions which determined the choice.
This explanation is strikingly confirmed by a comparison of
our list, which describes the state of things existing when the
development of the nation began, with that contained in Num.
xxvi., which describes in a similar manner the state of the
Jishpachoth when it was complete.  Such a comparison establishes all the suppositions which our explanation necessarily
involves.  In general the names mentioned are the same.  In
Gen. xlvi. they are given as those of the grandsons and greatgrandsons of Jacob, and in Num. xxvi. as those of the heads of
separate Mlishlpachoth; and the few deviations from this rule the
altered circumstances will easily and naturally explain.  Thus,




REMOVAL OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL TO EGYPT.       9
in Gen. xlvi. we have only two of Jacob's grandsons by Joseph
mentioned, viz., Ephraim and Manasseh; whilst in Num. xxvi.
we have not less than thirteen Mfishpachzoth assigned to the tribes
of Ephraim  and Manasseh.  But so long as the two sons of
Joseph had not been adopted by Jacob (and that did not talke
place till the end of his life, seventeen years after the emigration),
they could only be regarded as Jacob's grandsons, and therefore
as the founders of two Mishpachoth.  But when once they had
been adopted, and had become the heads of distinct tribes, the
NJish1gachoth of the tribes were necessarily traced to their sons
or grandsons. On the other hand, some names are omitted from
Num. xxvi. which we find in Gen. xlvi. among the grandsons of
Jacob. This, too, may be very simply explained on the ground
that probably they did not increase to a sufficient extent to be
able to claim the right of forming independent Mish]pachoth,
which they would otherwise have possessed as grandsons of
Jacob, or that their families became extinct.   Thus, for
example, ten sons of Benjamin are named in Gen. xlvi., but in
Num. xxvi. and 1 Chr. viii. 1, 2, we only read of five.  This
diminution, however, was most probably occasioned by the
punishments so frequently inflicted upon the people in the desert.
if, then, it was the design of our author to continue his history
to that point of time, in which the first foundations of the
national institutions were laid in the Mish1achoth, and if, as a
general rule, these Mlishpachoth commenced with the grandsons
of Jacob, it was necessary that he should include all the sons
of Benjamin as well as the rest of Jacob's grandsons in the
genealogical summary with which he closes his book.  The
unimportant and accidental circumstance that some of these
were born in Egypt, was not in itself sufficient to prevent him
from completing the lists, especially as the phrase " in lumbis,"
which conveyed to his mind and to those of others in his day a
sense so much at variance with modern views, would be to him
both natural and ready to his hand.
And the introduction of the namles of the great-grandsons of
Jacob through Judah and Asher may undoubtedly be explained
in a similar way. From Num. xxvi. we learn that in their case
there was an exception to the general rule, that the Mishhpachoth
should be founded by Jacob's grandsons.  With Judah's grandsons, Hezron and Hanmuel, the sons of Plarez, this is very




10                        JACOB.
apparent.  As the two sons of Judah, Er and Onan, who died
in Canaan, had failed to become the founders of Mlishpachoth,
the two first-born sons of Pharez, the son of their widow Tanmar,
through a Levirate marriage with Judah, entered as a matter of
right into the vacant places of the deceased sons.  Their father
Pharez also became the founder of another Miszhpachah through
the remainder of his sons; and this Mishpachahl was called by his
name. This may likewise have been the case with the grandsons
of Asher, Heber, and Malchiel, who founded families of their
own in addition to that of which their father B'riah was the head
(see Num. xxvi. 44 seq.), but we have not the necessary genealogical data for establishing the fact.
Thus we differ from Henystenberg, inasmuch as we do not
consider that the ideal importance of the number 70 would be
a sufficient explanation of that want of objective truth which
Baumgarten finds in the verse before us, but trace it, as the
latter also does, to an objective historical fact.  We are not,
however, inclined on that account to give up the importance of
the number 70. We regard it as a seal impressed upon the first
step in the progress of Israel towards a national existence, for
the purpose of distinguishing it as the holy nation to which
salvation was entrusted for all the nations of the earth.  Seve;n
is the covenant-number, gai' d'oxv, the sacred number, and
therefore the sign of separation from the world. Ten, again, is
the mark of completeness and universality.  In seventy we have
seven multiplied by ten, and this multiplication is the symbol
of the peculiar position of the people of Israel.  For the two
things which distinguished the nation of Israel were just its
particular call and separation on the one hand, and its universal
relation, as the bearer of promises, on the other.  And this
universalism was not a mere abstract idea slightly associated
with the history of the people, but a concrete potential fact,
which entered truly and deeply into the very first stages of that
history. The nation of Israel was a blessing to the nations even
before the advent of Christ.  In proportion to its age and the
measure of its development it was so in the person of Abraham,
when he led his pilgrim-life among the people of Canaan.  In a
still higher degree it became so in Joseph.  In the highest sense
it is so in Christ.
It appears strange that in the genealogical list there are only




REMOVAL OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL TO EGYPT.      11
two women mentioned among the direct descendants of Jacob;
Dinah, his daughter, and Serah, the daughter of Asher.  We
cannot determine with certainty whether their names are inserted
because they were the only female descendants of Jacob in
existence at the time of the emigration to Egypt, or whether
there were not rather some peculiar circumstances which led to
their being singled out from the rest.  In the case of Serah we
might infer from Num. xxvi. 46 and 1 Chron. vii. 30 that the
latter was the cause, as she had evidently attained to some kind
of independence among the families of Israel after her marriage.
This may also have been the case with Dinah, and the family
may afterwards have lost its importance.  (Bcaummgarten agrees
with Luther in the conjecture that Dinah was Jacob's housekeeper after his wives were dead, and that this will account for
the insertion of her name).  /Ve must give the preference to
the first of these explanations, as most consistent with the
objective correctness of the catalogue. It appears to us neither
impossible nor incredible that there should have been so large
an excess of male children in Jacob's family for the first two
generations; on the contrary, we can see in this fact the marks
of the wisdom of God, which always directed the births that
took place in the chosen family.  We have already seen in
several instances with what difficulties the marriages of the
sons were attended.   It was of the greatest importance to
guard against any intermarriage with the Canaanites, lest the
stream of heathen corruption should break through the barriers
by which this family was kept apart. But as the other branches of
of the family yielded more and more to the corruption of heathenism, and as the family of Jacob himself extended, these difficulties
must necessarily have gone on increasing.  If, however, the
immediate posterity of Jacob consisted chiefly of men, it would
evidently be easier to overcome the difficulties, and there would
also be less danger connected with the marriage of one of Jacob's
sons or grandsons to a heathen wife, than with the marriage
of a daughter to a heathen husband.  The subordinate position
of the wife would render the former of comparatively slight
importance; but in the latter case the daughter would actually
separate herself from the chosen family and from the Covenant
with Jehovah.  It was not till a later period, when the bloodrelationship of the descendants of Jacob had become so distant




12                       JACOB,
as to present no obstacle to the contraction of marriages one
with another, that the difficulties in the way of the marriage of
daughters came to an end.
As a rule, however, the sons of Jacob continued to avoid contracting marriages with the women of Canaan. This is plainly
implied in ver. 10, where it is expressly mentioned as an unusual
occurrence that Simeon had taken a Canaanitish woman as his
concubine.  In addition to their relations in Syria they could
have.recourse to other relations, viz., the descendants of Edom
and Keturah.
(3). V. Lengerke (ut sup. i. 347), who pronounces chap. xlvi.
1-4 an incongruous interpolation, charges the author of this
passage with ignorance of the nature of the country between
Beersheba and Hebron, on account of his making Pharaoh's
waggons travel by this impassable road.  " According to the
statements of modern travellers," says v. Lengerke, as e.g.
Robinson (i. 317), it seems evidently impossible that waggons
can ever have been employed among the steep and rugged hills
of this district, which has always been destitute of a carriage
road."  But Robinson is merely speaking of the strcaiyht road
between the two places, by which he himself travelled; and he
afterwards adds, "we are convinced that waggons for the patriarch
could not have passed by that route. Still by taking a more
circuitous route up the great Wady-el-KhlUlil more to the right,
(according to the map the distance would not be very much
greater), they might probably reach Hebron through the valleys
without great difficulty."
(4). We must not overlook the fact that, when the brothers
are admitted to an audience of the king, they do not ask to be
received as members of the Egyptian state, but merely request
permission to settle as foreigners and sojourners in Egypt for
an indefinite period: " to sojourn in the land are we come," (chap.
xlvii. 4). In this carefully chosen expression we see not only
their consciousness, that Egypt could never be the land of their
home and their future history, but also their intention to retain
the right of leaving Egypt whenever they pleased, and hence
the subsequent oppression and detention of their descendants was
an act of violence opposed alike to justice and to the original
compact. There is a striking resemblance between the description
of the arrival of Jacob's family and a scene which Henygstenbery




REMOVAL OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL TO EGYPT.      13
has copied from Wilkinson's work on Egypt, (see Egypt and the
Books of Moses, p. 40, Eng. translation). It is taken from a
tomb at Beni Hassan, and represents the arrival of strangers,
who have come to Egypt with presents in their hands, and with
their property carried on asses. " The number 37 is written
over them in hieroglyphics. All the men have beards, which
was contrary to the custom of the Egyptians, although very
general in the East at that period. It is usually introduced in
their sculptures as a peculiarity of foreign uncivilised nations."
On this HEengstenbery remarks, " Some believe that this painting
has a direct reference to the arrival of Jacob with his family in
Egypt. On the contrary, Wilkinson observes that the expression
"captives," which appears in the inscription, makes it probable
that they are some of the prisoners of whom so many were taken
captive by the Egyptians during their wars in Asia. But in his
more recent work, he considers this circumstance as no longer
decisive, inasmuch as the contemptuous expressions common
among the Egyptians in speaking of foreigners, might account
for the use of this word.  In fact it speaks very decidedly against
their being prisoners, that they are armed. Whether this painting has a direct reference to the Israelites will, of course, ever
remain problematical, but it is at any rate well worthy of notice,
since it furnishes proof that emigration with women and children
took place in very ancient times."
Joseph directed his brethren to introduce themselves as
shepherds, not only in spite of the fact that shepherds were an
abomination to the Egyptians, but on that very account. His
reason for doing so is apparent.  In the occupation of his
brethren there was the surest guarantee that their national and
religious peculiarities would not be endangered or destroyed, and
that they would not be absorbed by the Egyptians. The hatred
and contempt which the Egyptians cherished towards the shepherd
caste, as existing monuments attest by many a characteristic
sign, may be traced to the fact that agriculture, with its regular
and methodical habits, was the sole support of the Egyptian
state, and that the irregularities of a nomad life must have
appeared to a pedantic Egyptian to be rude and barbarous in the
extreme. It is interesting, however, to find traces in the Pentateuch of the different stages in the growth of that fanatical hatred,
which the people of Egypt ultimately cherished towards every



14                       JACOB.
thing foreign. When Abraham sojourned in Egypt there was
no appearance of this dislike; in Joseph's time all shepherds
were an abomination to the Egyptians, and it was necessary that
Joseph should be naturalised by marrying the daughter of an
eminent priest.  But the fact that such a marriage could take
place is a sign, that the hatred and antipathy towards all that
was foreign, which prevailed in the time of the Exodus, had not
yet reached its highest point.
Pharaoh's readiness to consent to the request of the brethren
may have been dictated by political motives, as well as by a wish
to gratify Joseph. He may not improbably have hoped that by
the settlement of a powerful and devoted tribe in the border
province he would secure a desirable bulwark against the devastating incursions of the Bedouin robbers of the desert, and also
against the other nations of the East, from whom Egypt, with
its tempting treasures, had always much to fear.
(5). For the situation of the province of Goshen, see Gesenius
Thes. s. v., Robinson i. 76 sqq. (London Ed. 1841), Hengstenberg ut sup. p. 42, sqq., Eng. tr., Ewald ii. 52, sqq., and Tischendorf, de Israel. per mare rubrum transitu, Lips. 1847, p. 3, sqq.
Goshen was undoubtedly the most easterly border-land of Egypt.
Jacob sent Judah thither before the rest (Gen. xlvi. 28). There
the procession halted until Joseph had obtained the king's permission (chap. xlvii. 1). And the Israelites asked for a grant of
this province that they might not come too closely into contact
with the Egyptians, who hated their mode of life (xlvi. 34). It
is evident from Ex. xiii. 17, and 1 Chr. vii. 21, that Goshen
bordered on Palestine and Arabia, and the history of the departure of the Israelites in the Book of Exodus shows that it was
not far from the Red Sea. The following data help to determine
the western boundary of Goshen:-It extended as far as the
Nile (Ex. ii. 3; Num. xi. 5; Deut. xi. 10), and the Egyptian capital
of that day was not far distant (Gen. xlv. 10, xlvi. 28, 29; Ex. ii.
5, 8), though the name of the capital is nowhere mentioned in
the Pentateuch. The searching investigations of Bockart (sedes
aulae ]Egyptiacae ad Mosis tempora, opp. s. p. L099, seq.) and
Hengstenberg (Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 44, 45), lead
to the conclusion that it was Tanis (or Zoan), near to the mouth
of the Tanitic arm of the Nile.  This supposition is strongly
confirmed by Ps. lxviii. 12, 43, where God is said to have wrought




REMOVAL OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL TO EGYPT.        15
his signs in Egypt in the field of Zoan, i.e., in the Tanitic
nomos; and there is an unmistakeable intimation of this in the
Pentateuch, where Hebron is said to have been built seven years before Zoan of Egypt, (Num. xiii. 23).  This expression, Zoan of
Egypt, implies not merely that it was one of the oldest cities in
Egypt, but that it held the highest rank, in other words, that it was
the capital of Egypt. Moreover, it must not only have been well
known to the Israelites, but it must also have stood in very close
relation to them.* If we add to these scriptural data the statement of Josephus, Arch. ii. 7, 6, that Pharaoh gave up Heliopolis
to Jacob and his children, "we shall probably come very near to
the truth," as K. v. Raumner says, Beitr. Zur. bibl. Geogr., p. 1,
" if we assume that the land of Goshen was the strip of cultivated
land which runs from iHeliopolis, on the south-west, towards the
north-east, and is bounded on the east by the Arabian desert,
and on the west by the eastern arms of the Nile," i.e., very nearly
the same ground which is now covered by the province of
es-Sharkiyeh (the eastern land); see Robinson, i. 76. The
only question that could arise here is whether the Tanitic arm
itself, or the Pelusiac arm, which is a little further to the east,
formed the western boundary.  As we do not read that the
Israelites crossed the Nile either when they entered Egypt or
when they left, the decision of this question would depend upon
the size of the Pelusiac arm, whether it was as small then as it
now is (which seems very probable, from the nature and appearance of the ground, Robinson, i. 549), or whether it was once
navigable, as some have inferred from Arrian iii. 1, 4, but without sufficient reason (Robinson, ut sup.).
These results are supported by the accounts which are given
of the nature and fertility of the land of Goshen.  From Gen.
xlvi. 34 it appears to have consisted of pasture-land, and in
xlvii. 6 it is described as one of the most fruitful of the provinces
of Egypt. These two features are seldom found together, but in
this district we have them both. Part of the land is steppe,
which is only suited for pasture, whilst the rest consists of the
most fertile soil, and is watered by the overflowing of the Nile.
With regard to the productiveness of the province of es-Sharkiyeh, even at the present time, Robinson says (i. p. 78, 79):
* The author retracts this opinion afterwards; see ~ 40, 2.-Tr.




16                        JACOB.
" In the remarkable Arabic document translated by De Sacy,
containing a valuation of all the provinces and villages of Egypt
in the year 1376, the province of the Shurkiyeh comprises 383
towns and villages, and is valued at 1,411,875 dinars-a larger
sum than is put upon any other province, with one exception.
During my stay in Cairo I made many enquiries respecting this
district, to which the uniform reply was that it was considered
as the best province in Egypt. Wishing to obtain more definite
information, I ventured to request of Lord Prudhoe, with whom
the Pasha was understood to be on a very friendly footing, to
obtain for me, if possible, a statement of the valuation of the
provinces of Egypt.  This, as he afterwards informed me, could
not well be done, but he had ascertained that the province of the
Shurkiyeh bears the highest valuation, and yields the largest
revenue. He had himself just returned from an excursion to
the lower parts of this province, and confirmed, from his own
observation, the reports of its fertility. This arises from the fact
that it is intersected by canals, while the surface of the land is
less elevated above the level of the Nile than in the other parts
of Egypt, so that it is more easily irrigated. There are here
more flocks and herds than anywhere else in Egypt, and also
more fishermen.  The population is half migratory, composed
partly of Fellahs, and partly of Arabs from the adjacent deserts,
and even from Syria, who retain in part their nomadic habits,
and frequently remove from one village to another. Yet there are
many villages wholly deserted, where many thousands of people
might at once find a habitation. Even now another million at
least might be sustained in the district, and the soil is capable
of higher tillage to an indefinite extent. So, too, the adjacent
desert, so far as water could be applied for irrigation, might be
rendered fertile, for wherever water is there is fertility."
We find another name for " the land of Goshen," in chap.
xlvii. 11, viz., "the land of Raem'ses," Sept. Pa/eoro.  The socalled land of Raem'ses is generally distinguished from the city
of Raem'ses, which was built at a later period (Ex. i. 11).  But
there is no ground for this distinction, as tHengstenberg in
particular has shewn (Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 49, seq.,
note Eng. tr.)  Raem'ses is undoubtedly the name of a city in
every other place in which it occurs (Ex. xii. 37; Num. xxxiii.
3, 5); and there is no reason to suppose that the city was not in




REMOVAL OF THIE HOUSE OF ISRAEL TO EGYPT.      17
existence at the time of Joseph; for Ex. i. 11 does not refer to
the first building of the city, but to the fortification of it. " The
land of Raeim'ses" was evidently the land of Goshen, of which
the chief city was Raem'ses.  The question as to the city actually referred to, and its situation, will come under examination in
connexion with the history of the Exodus.
6. The fact that the aged patriarch presumed to bless the
king of Egypt, and thus, in a certain sense, to assert superiority,
is to be accounted for not merely fiom his greater age, but also
from the impulse and encouragement given to Jacob by the consciousness that he was called of God to be a blessing to the
nations (Gen. xii. 2). Jacob's blessing was a return and compensation for the kindness shown by Pharaoh to the house of Israel;
and we see here the type of the true relation, in which Israel was
to stand to heathenism in all their future intercourse.  Pharaoh
offers earthly goods to the house of Israel, and Israel in return
blesses him with the spiritual blessing of the house of God.
We may notice, in passing, the importance of the account of
Jacob's age, which is introduced at this point apparently in so
accidental a manner. For, were it not for the statement here
made by Jacob, we should lose the chronological thread of the
patriarchal history, and that of the Old Testament in general
would thereby be completely destroyed.
7. The historical importance of the emigration of the house of
Israel to Egypt is evinced by the fact, that when the covenant was
made by God with Abraham (vol. i., ~ 56), this was announced to
him by revelation as a necessary part of the divine plan. At the
same time it was expressly declared to him that the settlement
in Egypt would not be permanent (chap. xv. 14), and this was
repeated to Jacob in the vision at Beersheba (chap. xlvi. 4).
The design of the emigration was made known to Abraham:
namely, that it was necessary as a transition from pilgrimage in
the promised land to the full possession of the whole. In like
manner the Lord said to Jacob in Beersheba (ver. 3): " fear not
to go down into Egypt, for I will there make of thee a great
natiocn."  The two things are most intimately connected, for
Israel (even if we look merely at outward circumstances), could
not have obtained complete and sole possession of the land until
it had become an organised nation.  Canaan was already
inhabited by other tribes, and they must necessarily be driven
VOL. II.                                    B




JACOB.
out and the country conquered, before unlimited possession could
be secured. But Israel must become a powerful people, before
it could accomplish this.  And whilst, on the one hand, the
development of the family of Israel into a people was the condition of their taking possession of the land; so, on the other
hand, was the complete and irremediable corruption of the
present inhabitants to be the condition of their expulsion.
This is the meaning of the words addressed to Abraham  (chap.
xv. 16), "fbr the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full."
These two indispensable prerequisites were already preparing,
and during the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt both were to
progress uninterruptedly towards completion.  The spiritual
blessings, which the pilgrimage of the patriarchs in the midst of
the Canaanites had put within their reach for two hundred years,
but which had been offered in vain, were now to be taken from
them. It was the just judgment of God which deprived them
of the salt they had so long despised, that the corruption which
existed among them might do its work the more rapidly.  The
Israelites, on the other hand, were led to the enjoyment of those
earthly blessings which were to be found in Egypt, the fairy land
of fruitfulness, that they might become a great nation with more
rapidity and ease.
Two hundred and fifteen years had now elapsed since Abraham
first entered Canaan.  There he had completed his pilgrimage,
and his remains were deposited in the family grave at Hebron.
There Isaac was born and died, and there he lived and suffered.
There Jacob also had fought and conquered, and his sons and
grandsons, the founders of the tribes and families from which
the chosen people were to spring, had all been born and brought
up in that land. Thus, then, the house of Israel had lived long
enough in the promised land for the home feeling, so important
and necessary, as we have already shown that it was (vol. i. ~ 49),
to be deeply and ineradicably fixed in the national character. It
was necessary that the rise of the family should take place in
Canaan; for that of the nation another soil was required.
The sentence of comparative barrenness had long prevailed in
the chosen family; it was the curse of natubre, which was not
fitted to bring forth the promised seed.  But this sentence,
which had been permitted by Divine wisdom to continue in force
so long, was now removed.  The mercy of the author of the




REMOVAL OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL TO EGYPT.       19
promises was unceasingly displayed, and instead of that comparative barrenness, which prevailed to such an extent that, after
many decennia of apparently vain hope and patience, and
unanswered faith and prayer, there was only one solitary representative of the covenant, there was now granted a productiveness of so remarkable a character, that in a few centuries
there was every prospect of the fulfilment of the promise, that
the seed should be as the sand which is upon the sea shore.
But Canaan, at that time, was not the land in which the
promise could be fulfilled without interruptions.  Israel could
not possibly have grown to a great and independent nation there.
And, what is quite as important, they would have been unable
to maintain their national and religious peculiarities intact,
amidst the temptations and attacks of a hostile principle.  The
elements most needed to promote their growth and bring it to
perfection were not to be found there, nor would they have been
educated in the school, which was best fitted to train them for
their subsequent obligations.
Canaan was then in the possession of numerous tribes, who
regarded the land as their own. Even Abraham had felt himself
cramped in the movements of his establishment (Gen. xiii. 6);
Isaac had constantly to retire before the powerful inhabitants by
whom he was surrounded (Gen. xxvi.), and in the time of Jacob
the difficulties must rather have increased than diminished.  If,
therefore, the house of Israel had remained any longer in Canaan,
they would have encountered the greatest obstacles to their ever
becoming a large and independent nation.  If their numbers had
rapidly increased, it would have been impossible for them to stand
entirely aloof from the Canaanites, as they hitherto had done.
In such a case, they must either have made war upon the inhabitants, in order to maintain a footing in the land (and it would
not be difficult to foresee the disastrous issue if they had); or they
must have scattered themselves over the neighbouring countries,
and then they would have lost their national unity and degenerated into a number of separate nomad hordes; or thirdly, and
of this there would be the greatest fear, they would have intermarried and mingled with the Canaanites, until they were
completely absorbed by their superior numbers.   But the
maintenance of their religious peculiarities would have been even
more difficult, than that of their national independence.  The
B2




2)0                       JACOB.
religious eclecticism of the Canaanites, their readiness to adopt
theforms of the Israelitish religion without its spirit (of which
we had an example in the case of the Sichemites), and the
seductive influence, which the worship of nature exerted upon
that age and would certainly have exerted upon the Israelites, if
they had come into closer contact with the inhabitants of the
land, would all have combined to produce a result that would
have been destructive of the very foundations of Israel's destiny.
None of these dangers existed in Egypt.  There they could
become a great nation without any difficulties or obstructions,
and without the least interference with their national and religious peculiarities. And, what was of no little importance, they
had opportunities there of making many provisions for their future
wants as a nation. First of all, the land of Egypt furnished them
with a plentiful supply during the existing famine, and such
was the fertility and extent of Goshen that there was no occasion
for them to be scattered, and no inducement to the members of
particular tribes to separate from the general body. There was
no fear of their mixing with the Egyptians and giving up their
national and religious integrity. The hatred which the Egyptians
cherished towards every foreigner, and the contempt in which
shepherds especially were held, furnished an indestructible safeguard against any such danger.  As Goshen was just as well
fitted for agriculture as it was for grazing, it naturally induced
them to combine the pursuits of farming, gardening, and vinegrowing with those of their earlier nomad life, and thus fostered
a taste for that mode of life, which was afterwards to form an
essential part of their national existence.  In the midst of the
science, civilisation, and industry of Egypt, Israel was in the best
school for that general culture, which they would afterwards
require. Their intimate acquaintance with the Egyptian modes
of thought, which looked at life in all its outward manifestations
and ramifications from a religious point of view, may have served
to enrich in many ways even the religious views of the Israelites.
And the symbols of the Egyptian worship set before them  a
completely developed form of religious life, which was the product
of laws of thought that are universally inherent in the human
mind, and therefore was not merely applicable to Egyptian
pantheism, but could also be adopted as a welcome support to
the worship of the Israelitish theism, if only it could be animated,




ADOPTION OF JOSEPH'  SONS.             21
purified, and modified by the Israelitish principle.  In like
manner the Egyptian constitution, with its strict rules and
excellent organisation, furnished the model which, with modifications to suit the altered circumstances, was afterwards adopted
in the Israelitish state.  And lastly, " Egypt was the seat of
the strongest worldly power, and therefore furnished the best
instrumentality for the infliction of such severe sufferings as
would awaken in the minds of the Israelites a longing for deliverance and a readiness to submit to their God; whilst, at the
same time, it offered a splendid field for the manifestation of the
power and justice and mercy of the God of Israel in the rescue
of His people and the judgment of their enemies" (Hengstenberg,
Pent. i. 362).  The importance of the two elements last mentioned, and their necessary connection with the counsel of God,
are apparent from the fact, that they are expressly mentioned in
the revelation which was made by God to Abraham  (chap. xv).
Thus Israel obtained the character of a redeemed people, which
was of such great importance in its future destiny, and Jehovah
then showed himself to be, what he was to continue to be in a
constantly increasing degree, the Redeemer in Israel.
(8). We reserve the inquiry respecting the dynasties which
ruled in Egypt at the time when the children of Israel were
sojourning there, and into the connection between the Hyksos
and the Israelites, till we arrive at the period of the Exodus from
Egypt, in order that we may not anticipate, or enter into separate
discussions of subjects which are closely connected.
ADOPTION OF JOSEPH S SONS.
~ 2. (Gen. xlvii. 27-xlviii. 22). —Jacob lived seventeen
years in Egypt, and reached the age of 147. A short time
before his death he sent for Joseph, and exacted an oath from
him, that he would not bury him in Egypt, but by the side of his
fathers in the promised land. Joseph then introduced his two
sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, and, in virtue of the promises
made to him by God, Jacob formally adopted and solemnly
blessed them (1).  Joseph had placed the elder son Manasseh at




22                         JACOB.
Jacob's right hand, and the younger, Ephraim, at the left; but
Jacob crossed his arms, and pronounced the blessing with his
right hand upon Ephraim's head, and the left upon that of
Manasseh.  Joseph, supposing it to be an oversight, complained
of his doing so; but Jacob, instead of making any alteration,
explained to him that the greater blessing and the more numerous posterity would belong to the younger. The Patriarch then
turned to Joseph, and, as a proof of special affection, presented
him with a piece of land which he had once conquered from the
Canaanites (2).
(1). We have already remarked, in the previous section, that
the chosen seed had now reached the close of one of the stages of
its history. The family was complete, and the basis was laid for
the developulent of the nation.  In a certain sense, too, this was
a type of the absolute close of its entire history, when its course
as a nation should be finished, and the basis laid for its worldwide destiny.  This type, as we have seen, was chiefly displayed
in the fact, that the idea of Israel's appointment, to be the medium
of salvation to the nations, was here partially and temporarily
realised, whilst the ultimate fulfilment would be permanent and
universal.  In Joseph, as the noblest product of the family life,
and as the representative of his house to the heathen, Israel
had become the saviour of Egypt.  But it was evident that the
salvation, which Israel brought to the heathen at that time, was
only a passing one, and did not exhaust the prormise; for this
had spoken of salvation for all the nations of the earth, whereas
the present fulfilment of that promise reached merely to one
among the nations.  The family life of Israel could only impart
a blessing to one people, and that blessing was limited in force
and extent. The full and unlimited blessing for the whole world
could only be realised, when the national life of Israel was also
complete.  The Israelites, therefore, had not reached the goal,
when the first stage of their history drew to a close.  The development of the nation was now to recommence, but on a larger
scale, and furnished with fresh powers and different means.
Joseph had already stept beyond the contracted limits which
hledged in the chosen seed, that he imight carry a blessing to the




ADOPTION OF JOSEPH'S SONS.             2 3
heathen.   His path led him to a freer, more lofty, and we
might almost say, a universal standpoint. In him Israel reached
an eminence, on which the limited character of its subsequent
development prevented it from standing long, and from this
point it came down to the humble position assigned it, that it
might afterwards attain to something infinitely higher and more
glorious.  Joseph's exaltation was followed by humiliation in his
sons.  He led them himself to his father, that by his blessing he
might consecrate them to this.  He bore them away from the
posts of honour which were open to them in Egypt, that they
might return to the humble shepherd-life which his brethren
led.  They were not to perpetuate the idea represented by their
father, but to unite with his brethren in originating a new development.  This act of Joseph denoted a return to a condition
of exclusiveness, the transition from the first stage to the second
in the history of Israel. It is a proof of Joseph's faith, gives us
an insight into the plans of God, and manifests the harmony
which God had determined to establish between the subjective
and objective elements of that history.
Jacob's treatment of the sons of Joseph denoted two things:
the restoration of the house of Joseph to the family of Israel,
and the adoption of the two grandchildren to the position and
privileges of children.  The former was requisite, since their
father Joseph had been naturalised as an Egyptian, and therefore
had broken the outward ties which bound him to his family.  Of
the importance and effect of this we have spoken already. But, as
Joseph had become the deliverer of his father's house in consequence of his leaving it, his return to it was to secure to him a
larger measure of its blessings, and therefore Jacob adopted his
two sons.  The right to do this he founds upon the fact, that
God had appeared at Bethel (vol. i. ~ 75) and given him the double
blessings of posterity and the promised land (chap. xlviii. 3, 4).
"Therefore," said he, "thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh,
shall be mine as Reuben and Simeon." The privilege possessed
by the sons of Jacob above the grandsons consisted, as we have
already had occasion to remark, in the fact that the former were
the founders of closely organised tribes, and the latter of merely
subordinate families.
This act of Jacob's is generally regarded as a virtual exclusion
of Reuben and Simeon from  the rights of' primogeniture, end




24                       JACOB.
the transference of those rights to Joseph, since the double portion was the most essential mark of the birthright (Deut. xxi.
17).  But there is no ground for such an inference here.  Undoubtedly Joseph did receive a double portion in his sons; but
it by no means followed that he obtained the privileges of the
firstborn.  His sons were placed on an equal footing with those
of Jacob, but Reuben's claims to the birthright were not necessarily affected in consequence.  We shall enter into the question
more fully in a subsequent section (chap. xlix). The only thing
that makes the nature of the adoption obscure, is the fact that
Jacob expressly declares upon his deathbed, that the three eldest
sons have forfeited their rights, and then merely transfers to
Judah the second of the two privileges of birthright (a double
inheritance and the headship of the family), but says nothing at
all with reference to the former.
Jacob's blessing is the consequence of his adoption of Joseph's
sons.  In addition to the formal right to found two separate
tribes, he assures them also of the requisite ability, that is, he
gives them the blessing of such fruitfulness, as would enable them
to form and maintain such tribes. The blessing is imparted by
the imposition of hands; for the general meaning of which see
my losaisches Opfer (Mitau 1842, p. 67 sqq.)  Jacob pronounces the same blessing on the two sons, and blesses them both,uno actu. There is indeed a difference, but one of degree merely
and not of kind.  To the younger there is promised greater
fruitfulness and power than to the elder. As there is no reason
to suppose that the distinction originated in any personal predilection, we can only explain it on the ground of the prophetic
foresight of the patriarch, and discover in the prediction the last
expression of that -rapa vt5otv, which predominated in the whole
of the patriarchal history.
(2). When Jacob had blessed the sons of Joseph, he turned
again to Joseph himself, and said: " Behold I die, but God shall
be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers.
Moreover I give to thee one portion (-nU- 0tj) above thy
brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my
sword and with my bow."   This difficult passage has been
expounded in various ways, and sometimes very strangely (vid.
C. Iken de portione una Josepho prae fratribus a patre data,
in his philol. and theol. dissertations). Calvin and others follow




ADOPTION OF JOSEPH S SONS.            25
the Septuagint, and suppose the passage to refer to the city of
Sichem, which Jacob's sons took from the Amorites and destroyed,
in consequence of the violence done to Dinah.  But this explanation is irreconcileable with the use of the word -ANU one, and
it is inconceivable that Jacob should attribute to himself an event,
which he so strongly lamented and abhorred (Gen. xxxiv. 30,
and xlix. 5-7).  Hence the   Vt2 must in any case be an
appellative, though the choice of this particular expression
renders it probable that there is some allusion to Sichem, which
was certainly allotted to the tribe of Ephraim. Others imagine
that the reference is to the " parcel of a field" which Jacob bought
from the Shechemites for a hundred pieces of silver (Gen. xxxiii.
19). This explanation apparently lies at the foundation of John
iv. 5.  Iken attempts to remove the discrepancy between the
statement of chap. xxxiii., that this field was bought, and that
of chap. xlviii., that it was conquered, by supposing that after
the land had been purchased, it was probably taken away again
by the Armorites, so that Jacob was obliged to recover it by force.
He finds a positive confirmation of this opinion in a wire-drawn
Haggada in Ja~lcut Shimeon, where Jacob and his sons are said
to have returned to Sichem, and to have engaged in a fearful war
with the Canaanites, in which the old patriarch Jacob performed
miraculous feats of bravery, and Judah did the most extraordinary
things with a kind of Berserker fury.  But we cannot possibly
attribute the smallest residuum of a historical tradition to so
absurd a legend, which has evidently grown out of the passage
before us. Besides, it appears very inappropriate, that Jacob
should found his claim to the piece of land upon a forcible conquest, which is never referred to in the book of Genesis, and not
upon the purchase, which is there recorded.   There is a third
explanation, which is given by several rabbins, and has been
revived by Tuch (comm. p. 552), viz., that the word, ~nDI',   I
took, like the other perfects in Jacob's address, is to be regarded
as a perfectum pro7ph]eticum, and therefore that the subsequent
conquest of the land by Jacob's descendants is here referred to,
and that the play upon the word Shechem indicates the province
which should afterwards be assigned to the descendants of Joseph.
But there are difficulties connected with this explanation. It is
true that, according to the ancient mode of view, Jacob might
very well have attributed to himself, as the representative of the




26                       JACOB.
nation, such a national transaction as the conquest of the land
by his descendants; but in this connection it does not appear
probable. Jacob's gift is evidently referred to here, as an expression of personal favour and affection, for which there would be a
much better opportunity if the land to be disposed of had been
acquired by his own exertions. Moreover, it nmust be remembered
that Jacob had already separated Joseph from his sons by adopting
the latter as his own (chap. xlviii. 6), and therefore that the
present was made to Joseph personally, and not as the father of
Ephraim and Manasseh, who had already received their blessings
(vv. 15 —20).  Hence we are shut up to some event in the life
of Jacob, which has been passed over by the book of Genesis;
and, as we can only fall back upon conjectures, that offered by
Hleim (Bibelstunden. i. 644) is perhaps the most plausible.
As we learn from Gen. 1. 23 that the children of Machir, the
son of Manasseh, were born on Joseph's knees, i.e., were adopted
by him, and from Num. xxvi. 29-33 that one of these sons was
named Gilead, and also from Num. xxxii. 39 sqq., and Joshua
xvii. 1, that the families of the tribe of Manasseh, who sprang
from Gilead, received the land of Gilead on the east of the Jordan
as their possession, Heim supposes that the tract of land to which
Jacob refers (amp lit. the shoulder of land), was the hillcountry of Gilead.  Jacob was peculiarly interested in this
district on account of his interview with Laban there (chap.
xxxi. 23 sqq.), and the " heap of witness" erected by him gave
him a certain claim. The Amorites may possibly have destroyed
this sacred memorial, and thus Jacob may have been led to
attack them, for the purpose of conquering and maintaining
possession of the memorial itself and the shoulder of land onil
which it stood.  Joseph may perhaps have bestowed the land,
which was presented to him by Jacob, upon the son of Machir,
who was " born upon his knees," and have named it Gilead in
consequence. This would probably explain the abrupt introduction of the tribe of Manasseh in Num. xxxii. 39: " And the
children of Machir the son of Manasseh went to Gilead and took
it, and dispossessed the Amorite which was in it. And Moses gave
Gilead unto Machir."  Hitherto the historian had only spoken
of Reuben and Gad.




JACOB'S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON TIS SONS.              27
JACOB'S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.
~ 3.   (Gen. xlix. 1-28).   Jacob assembles his twelve sons
around his deathbed. The germs of the future, which are
wrapped up in the present, open before his prophetic glance.
He says:
V. 1. " Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you
That which shall befal you in the end of the days  (1)
2. Gather yourselves together and hear, ye sons of Jacob,
Hearken unto Israel, your father!
3. Reuben, my first-born art thou!
My might and the first-fruits of my strength!
Pre-eminence in dignity and pre-eminence in power.
4. A fountain like water; have no pre-eminence!
For thou ascendedst thy father's bed,
Then defiledst thou it,-my couch he ascended!
5. Simeon and Levi, brethren are they!
Instruments of violence are their strokes.
6. Into their fellowship come not, my soul,
Join not in their assembly, my glory I
For in their wrath they strangled the man,
And in their wantonness lamed the ox.
7. Cursed be their wrath, for it is fierce,
And their rage, for it is cruel!
I will divide them in Jacob,
And scatter them in Israel (2).
8. Judah (i.e. praised) art thou, thy brethren praise thee,
Thy hand is on the neck of thine enemies;
The sons of thy father bow before thee.
9. A young lion is Judah.
From the prey thou risest up, my son.
He lieth down, he coucheth as a lion
And as a lioness.  Who rouseth him up?
10. The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
Nor the ruler's rod from the place between his feet,
Till he attain to rest.
And the nations obey him.
11. He binds his ass-foal to the vine,
And the young of his she-ass to the vine-branch,
He washes his clothes in wine,
His garment in the blood of the grape.




28                              JACOB.
12. Dark are thine eyes with wine,
White are thy teeth with milk (3).
13. Zebulon (i.e. dwelling), on the sea shore he dwells,
He dwells on the coast of ships
And his side is at Zidon.
14. Issachar, an ass with strong bones,
He lieth down between the hurdles.
15. He sees that rest is good,
And that the land is pleasant.
He bends his neck to the burden,
He becomes a tributary servant.
16. Dan (i. e. judge) judges his people
As one of the tribes of Israel.
17. Dan is a snake in the way,
An adder in the path.
He stings the horse's heel,
And backward falls his rider.
18. For thy help I wait, Jehovah.
19. Gad, oppressors press upon him,
But he presses their heel.
20. From Asher come fat things, his food,
He yields the dainties of a king.
21. Naphthali, a hind escaped,
Speaking words of beauty.
22. Son of the fruit-tree is Joseph,
Son of the fruit-tree at the well,
Daughters grow up over the wall.
23. They cause him bitterness, they shoot with arrows,
They lie in wait for him, the heroes of the arrow.
24. But his bow remains firm,
Supple is the strength of his hands.
From the hands of the strong one of Jacob,
From thence, where the shepherd is, the rock of Israel.
25. From the God of thy father-and he helps thee,
From the Almighty,-he blesses thee,
Blessings of heaven from above,
Blessings of the flood, which rests beneath,
Blessings of the breast and of the womb.
26. The blessings of thy father are stronger than the blessings of the
everlasting hills,
Than the loveliness of the hills of antiquity.
They come upon the head of Joseph,
On the crown of the consecrated among his brethren.
27. Benjamin, a rapacious wolf,
In the morning he devours the prey,
TIn the evening he divides the plunder (4).
3




JACOB'S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.      29
(1). Tuch, in his Commentary (p. 561), has given a list of the
numerous ancient authors who have written upon the chapter
before us. Among modern expositions we may mention that of
livernick (Vorlesungen iiber die Theol. des alten Test. p. 208
sqq.). Every prophecy is founded upon the circumstances and
necessities of the period of its delivery; and it is necessary, therefore, that we should understand both the feelings of the prophet
and the outward circumstances which gave occasion to the
prophecy, before we can interpret the prophecy itself.  The
blessing of Jacob is no exception to this rule.  We -have now
arrived at that point in the history of the chosen seed, in which
the family began to expand into the people. In the dodekad
of Jacob's sons a true basis had been laid' for the future development of the nation. The law, which required the separation of
Abraham from his family and the exclusion of Ishmael and Esau,
was now satisfied (vid. vol. i. ~ 49). Not one of the twelve sons of
Jacob had to be shut out.  They were all enclosed and united
by the bond of election and promise. The fulfilment of their
destiny depended upon their becoming a nation and possessing
the promised land.  These were the two results towards which
their history was leading.   The germs of both were now apparent; on the one hand, in the fact that, after so long a period
of comparative barrenness, they suddenly became remarkably
prolific, and, on the other, in the distinct consciousness that they
were strangers in Egypt, where they never could and never
were intended to feel at home.  The fulfilment of each of these
involved the union and amalgamation of the two, for the second
was dependent upon the first.  And this amalgamation constituted the future of Israel. This was to be the goal, and to constitute the completion, of their history, so far, that is, as it had already
struck its roots and put forth its buds.  From the very nature
of prophecy, then, the eye of the prophet could not look beyond
this goal (vid. vol. i. ~ 7), or, at least, could only do so where the
development of the existing germ would furnish the basis or the
germs of still further expansions.
The organ of the prophecy belonging to that age was Jacob.
With a heavy heart he had left the land of his pilgrimage, his
trials, his adventures, and his hopes, to see it no more; but he
had left it with the fullest assurance, confirmed by God, that in
his descendants he should receive it as a permanent possession.




30                       J. COB.
His whole soul was filled with the one thought of his return to
take possession of the promised land.  On this one point were
all his thoughts and feelings, all his hopes and longings, concentrated.  So completely was his inner life absorbed by this, that
there was no room for other thoughts or feelings, and all events
were viewed in their relation to this one.  From  the accounts
we possess of his sayings and doings after the removal to Egypt,
everything seems to have been merely an expression of this one
deep-rooted feeling of his nature (see chap. xlvii. 29 sqq., xlviii.
3-5; 21, 22), andhe could not rest till he was assured on oath that
his remains should be buried in the land of his fathers.  A mind
thus occupied and absorbed might well urge him to prophesy.
And as he draws near to death, at that moment when the fetters
of the spiritual sight are often broken,* not only is he enabled
to look into the future with clearer eyes, but the spirit of
prophecy comes upon him from above, and in its light he sees
the longings of his heart fulfilled, and the promised land in
the possession of his descendants.  He sees the tribes of Israel
stirring and active in the full enjoyment of the rich blessings of
the land, victorious over the dangers which they meet with
there; each one in the situation which the elective affinity of
his character and his inclinations may have led him to choose,
or which the patriarchal authority of the prophet, as the medium
of the divine decrees, may have assigned him  by way of punishment or reward.  His twelve sons are standing round his
bed, the representatives and fathers of the tribes by which the
land is to be taken. Before his mind there are gathered together
in one living picture all the pleasing and painful events of
which they have been the cause.  WVith prophetic vision he
traces the characters and dispositions of the fathers, as they are
transmitted, expanded, or modified, through the history of their
descendants. And aided by this insight, he allots to every one, on
the authority of God, his fitting portion of that land, in which he
himself has led a pilgrim life for more than a hundred years, and
which now stands with all its natural diversities and with its
rich and manifold productions, as vividly and distinctly before
* Cicero de divinatione, i. 30: facilius evenit appropinquante morte, ut
animijutura augurentur; Homer, I1. 22, 355-360; Plato, Apol. i. p. 90
Bip.; Xenophon, Cyr. viii. 7, 21, &c; Passavant, Lebens-Magnetismus, Ed.
2, p. 163.
2




JACOB'S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.      31
his mind as the different characters of his own sons.  (See the
beautiful exposition of this blessing in Herder's Briefe fiber das
Stud. d. Theol. I Br. 5, 6, and Geist der Hebr. Poesie ii. 187189).
That period in the future, which Jacob wishes to exhibit
prophetically to his sons, is described by him as:.,-  Gus,
the end of the days.  For an explanation of this formula we
refer more particularly to the excellent remarks of 31. Baumgarten (Comm. i. p. 364 sqq. Fid. also Hdavernickl, p. 209 seq.,
and Hengstenberg, Balaam 175 sqq.). We must admit with
Baumgarten and Hdivernick (in opposition to v. Bohlen, Rosenmidler, Hengstenberg, and others), that in the passage before us,
as well as the fifteen other passages of the Old Testament in
which they occur, the words "the end of days," like the
corresponding formula of the New  Testament, ev eo-rxatas?7/EpaL%, do not merely indicate some indefinite period in the
future, but the closing period, the end of days, the time of the
final fulfilment, in a word, the Messianic era. For although the
words in their literal signification might refer to any future times,
such as were not absolutely at the end; yet the usage of the
language was sufficiently settled to compel us to interpret them
in the present instance according to their stereotyped meaning.
But it is said that the blessing itself is irreconcileable with such
an interpretation; that the blessing evidently refers to the time
of Joshua, when the holy land was fully conquered and divided
among the twelve tribes; and that the time of Joshua cannot be
regarded as the end of days, i.e., as the close of the history of
Israel, but, on the contrary, was rather the actual commencement of that history.  This objection, however, has no
force, if we take a correct view of the prophecy and of the history
of Israel.  Baumgarten (ut sup.) most appropriately says:"The true knowledge of the end must take its form from the
position and the horizon of each individual.  Hence for Jacob
the end could be nothing else than the possession of the promised
land by his seed, the people of promise. All the promises pointed
to that, and beyond that nothing had been given or even hinted
at."  Jacob could reasonably look upon the time of Joshua as
that of the completion of all things; in fact he could not do
otherwise, for there was as much partiality and imperfection in
his knowledge of what constituted completion, as there was in




32                       JACOB.
all that had been historically realised in the time of Joshua.
And those very elements, which we find already fully developed
and embodied in a definite form in Jacob's prophetic view of the
perfection of the future, viz., the growth of his seed into a great
nation and the possession of the promised land, were actually
worked out and historically fulfilled in the time of Joshua.
From Jacob's subjective point of view, the time when his promised posterity should have become a great nation, and taken
possession of the promised land, was really the end of the
days, inasmuch as their constant motion was then exchanged
for rest, and wrestling and striving for possession and enjoyment.
All his thoughts and hopes, his wishes and longings, were still
bounded by this limited horizon.  The only characteristics of
the approaching end, with which he was acquainted, were the
growth of his seed into a great and powerful people, and their possession of the holy land. And he knew of nothing that hindered
the coming of the end, and the full and undisturbed possession
and enjoyment of all the blessings it involved, but the insignificant
and homeless condition of his family. Let these be once overcome,
and in his view the full blessings of the promise must be enjoyed
by his seed, and diffused by them throughout all the nations of
the earth. This subjective view of the patriarch was imperfect,
but by no means false.  It was true, not merely because the
removal of these hindrances, and the realisation of these conditions,
furnished the necessary basis for the absolute completion of the
Israelitish history, but also because it was in the possession of
the land, the enjoyment of the blessings of that possession, and
the central position which Israel then occupied among the nations
of the earth, that the vocation of the seed of Abraham received
its first passing fulfilment.  But this fulfilment contained other
germs within itself, which also required to be moulded and
expanded.   Jacob, however, looked at the period when the
promised land should be possessed, as one of fulfilment and
completion merely, and not, what it also was, as the seed of a
higher development, the first stage of a still wider expansion,
and therefore his view was imperfect.  Since, then, Jacob
prophesied of the time of Joshua, as though it would be the end,
whereas it was to be only the beginning, the preparation, or an
early stage of the absolute end; the prophecy of Jacob necessarily
differed as much from  the fulfilment in the time of Joshua, as




JACOB S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.      33
the relative termination differs from the absolute end of all.
Hence the consciousness was sure to be exciterd that the rest and
enjoyment and possession, which are referred to as perfect in
Jacob's blessing, were not fully realised in Joshua's days, and
therefore that Jacob's blessing still pointed onward from the
period of its first partial fulfilment to a future day, when it
should be more perfectly fulfilled.  As a general rule each age
will see the object of its longings, and therefore the end, in the
satisfaction of those wants of which it happens to be conscious.
But with every essential advance in the history of the world the
horizon widens, and men become conscious of new wants, new
desires, new expectations, of which previously they had no suspicion. The expansion of existing germs brings new germs to
light, which until then had been hidden from view.  And thus
every condition which seemed likely to be the end is no sooner
reached, than it becomes the commencement of a new development; and this will continue till the absolute end arrives, and
with it the full expansion of every germ.
This blessing was closely related to that pronounced on Jacob
by his father Isaac (vol. i. ~ 72; vid. my Einheit der Genesis, p.
198 seq.). Jacob here communicated to his sons, in a more fully
developed form, what he had already received from his father; and
the many points of coincidence and, to some extent, verbal agreements, which we meet with, especially in the predictions concerning Judah and Joseph, bear witness how deeply the prophetic
words of his father had been impressed upon Jacob's mind.
Hitherto we have found the blessing of promise not merely
handed down to the next generation by the possessor of it for
the time-being, but also expressly repeated and confirmed by
Jehovah (vol. i. ~ 72. 1).  The latter, however, was not the case
with Jacob's sons; there is no intimation of their having been
invested with the blessing by Jehovah. And from this time forth
even the former ceased. The reason why Jacob was the last to
invest his sons with the blessing of promise was, that he was the
last solitary possessor of the covenant and the blessing. And
the reason for the omission of the express investiture on the part
of Jehovah in the present case, seems to have been, that now at
length the way of grace entirely coincided with that of nature.
So long as certain members of the family had to be excluded as
natural branches, it wasi necessary that the divine investiture
VOL. II.                                    C




34                       JACOB.
should be repeated every time; but as soon as the patriarch had
been pointed out, whose entire posterity, without any exception
was destined to carry forward the plans of salvation, his divine
investiture had force and validity for all future generations.
(2). Reuben, the first-born, stood first in the rank of the
brethren who surrounded their father's bed. According to the
rules of primogeniture, the double inheritance (Gen. xxi. 17)
and the headship of the fanmily also belonged to him (1 Chr. vi.
2; Gen. xlix. 3); but he had forfeited both the rights and the
honour of birthright by the commission of incest (Vol. i. ~ 83). He
ought, as the first-born, to have been the firmest defender of the
honour of the family, and it was by him that it had been violated.
For that reason the crown of dignity and might, to which his
birthright entitled him, was taken from his head. Simeon and
Levi were the next in order, but the dignity, which Reuben had
forfeited, could not be conferred upon them; for through their
treachery towards the Shechemites (Vol. i. ~ 82) they had brought
disgrace upon the house of Jacob, made his good name "to
stink" among the heathen (Gen. xxxiv. 30), and acted in criminal
opposition to the call of Israel, to be the channel of blessings
and the medium of salvation to the heathen.  They had united
for the purpose of crime, therefore they were to be scattered in
Israel.  "This scattering of Simeon and Levi was an appropriate punishment for their alliance, which was opposed to the
spirit of Israel, just as at a former period the forcible dispersion
of the nations had been the consequence of their combining in
opposition to the will of Jehovah" (Baumgarten).
The three elder sons were thus excluded from the rights and
privileges of the birthright. They were not to inhabit the heart
of the land, which would otherwise have fallen to their share.
Reuben's inheritance was to be outside the true holy land, and
therefore was not even mentioned.  Simeon and Levi were
to be scattered in fragments among the rest of the tribes,
and therefore to lose the advantages and independence, which
only compactness and unity could secure. But, although they
were deprived of the blessings of the birthright, they were not
separated from the community of the chosen people, or from the
call which they had received. They were not placed on the
same footing as Ishmael and Esau, but still continued, as indi —
viduals, members of the family, and as tribes, members of the




JACOB S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.      35
people, to whom the promise was given. They were, therefore,
to co-operate with the rest in the duties to which the whole
people had been called, and that was their blessing. But their
co-operation was of a miserable kind, with very little of an independent character, and that was their curse.
(3). The earlier monographical expositions of the blessing
on Judah have been specified by Tuch (Comm. p. 570). There
have now to be added to the list tHengstenberg's Christology,
sqq.: Sack's Apologetik; Hofmann's Weissagung und Erfiillung; and L. Reinke's Weissagung Jakob's ub. d. zukiinftige
gliickliche Loos des Stammes Juda und dess. Nachkommen
Schilo. The tone and substance of Jacob's discourse changed
as soon as he looked at Judah.  He was able to bestow upon
the fourth son at least one part of that, which he had been obliged to refuse to the first three. The one great privilege of the
first-born, the rank of chief among the tribes, with pre-eminence
in power and dignity, is awarded to Judah.  He is in reality,
what he is in name, the praised among his brethren.  The
sons of his father bend before him, for with the courage of a
lion he has fought as their leader and champion against every
enemy, and having maintained their cause successfully, he holds
the fruits of his victory with a lion's power.  By swaying the
sceptre with the force he displays, he is able not only to enter
into rest, but to give rest to the tribes; at whose head he stands.
The nations, whom he has conquered by the might of his arm,
submit without resistance, yea willingly and cheerfully, to his
peaceful government, and share in the blessings of peace and
rest, into which he has entered and leads others also. The symbols of the conflict, by which the nations have been subjugated
to their own advantage, are now laid aside, and he is surrounded
by the emblems of peace alone. " Is he in full armour, a mighty
conqueror, who has subdued the nations? Is his garment fill
of the blood of the slain, his eye fired with the fierceness of
battle?  No, he comes seated on the young colt of an ass, an
animal of peace, and tarries in a vineyard.  Doubtless he has
washed his clothes in blood, but it is the blood of the grape. It
is wine that makes his eyes so full of fire, and milk, the harmless food by which his teeth are whitened, has made his temper
gentle and kind. The blessing to be realized in Judah's future
history begins with his victorious conflict, and closes with the
c2




36                        JACOB.
enjoyment of happiness and peace.  His princely bearing is
placed between the two. But Judah is the champion and leader
of his brethren, and therefore they all share in the blessings
secured by him."  (Hoflmann, Weissagung undcl Erfiillung i.
p. 118).
The most difficult passage in the blessing of Judah is the
much disputed clause " till Shiloh come."  We have followed
Ilofmann and others in taking ^'k, to be a common noun,
with the meaning rest; and have rendered the clause: "till he
(Judah) attains to rest."  Most commentators, however, regard
the words in question as the title of a personal Messiah, who
was to spring from the tribe of Judah; though they arrive at
this result in different ways.  Shiloh is, of course, in this case,
the subject, not the object, of the rendering: "till Shiloh (i.e.
the Messiah) come."  Thus Delitzsch (in his work on the prophetic theology of the Bible, p. 293) has expressed his firm conviction, " that every attempt to explain.Shiloh as a common
noun fails, and that the only correct rendering is that which
treats it as a name of the Messiah, since this prediction formed
an indispensable link in the historical chain, which ushered in
the proclamation of salvation.  For when once the patriarchal
triad had become a dodeiwad in the family of Jacob, and thus
the point of transition from the family to the people had been
reached, the question necessarily arose, from which of the twelve
tribes would salvation, i.e. the triumph of humanity, and the
blessing of the nations, arise?"  But Delitzsch himself has not
adhered to this explanation.
We also admit, as will presently appear, that this prophecy
forms a necessary link in the historical chain, which ushered in
the proclamation of salvation; but we by no means admit that
it was important that the question, from which of the twelve
tribes salvation was to be expected, should receive an answer at
this early age.  Such a question in fact could only arise, when
the idea of salvation had assumed the form of a confident expectation of a personal, individual Messiah.  The organic progress of prophecy, and its close connexion in all its stages with
contemporary history, prohibit us from imagining for a moment, that there was any expectation of a personal Messiah in the
patriarchal age. In fact such an expectation was not only not
indulged, but would have been altogether unsuitable to the cha



JACOB"S PROPHETIC BLESSING ONT H-IS SOiNS. 
racter of the times.  The evident intention of the whole history
of that age was to develope the family into a great people; its
entire tendency was to expand the unity of the patriarchs into
the plurality of a nation. And this impulse, which was inherent in the patriarchal history, was not an unconscious one, but
stood before the mninds of the patriarchs with the greatest clearness and certainty, and was the one object of all their thoughts
and hopes, and strong desires.  The patriarchal history began
with the consciousness of this their inmmediate destiny, as it was
set before them in the clearest light by the call of Abraham. The
progress of that history was maintained by the constant renewal,
or revival of the same consciousness. Nearly every one of the
numerous theophanies and Divine revelations, which occur in the
history of the patriarchs, point to this end, and contain a promise
that by the blessing of God it shall be attained.  The earnest
longing, which existed, for this expansion into a numerous people,
was necessarily heightened by the delay, which arose partly from
the barrenness that prevailed at first in the chosen family, and
partly also from the necessity of excluding several of the actual
descendants, and commencing afresh with a single patriarch.
And now, just at the moment when the way was opened for this
expansion, when faith in their destiny was exchanged for a sight
of the first stage in its fulfillment, when the course of history was making it a reality, the consciousness must have been
more vivid, and the assurance stronger, than ever it had been
before.  But as this was only the commencement of a coming
fulfilment, and not the complete fulfilinent itself, there was still
so much demand for the exercise of faith and hope in connexion
with that portion of their destiny, of which they were already
conscious, that there was as yet no possibility of awakening the
consciousness of still greater things beyond.
Since, then, prophecy, as a general rule, rests upon the age in
which it is delivered, and only opens to view those features of
the future, of which the germs and prototypes exist in the present, the expectations of salvation, which existed in the patriarchal age, must have been most closely related to the circumlstances just referred to.  An age, whose only task was to form a
great nation from  one single chosen man, whose movements,
subjective and objective, were all concentrated upon this one
result. a, result longed for and looked for above all others, could




38                       JACOB.
only regard salvation as dependant upon the attainment of this
result. The expectations of salvation, which prevailed in the
whole of the patriarchal age and for some time afterwards, were
summed up in the promise: " in thy seed shall all the nations of
the earth be blessed." The seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
when expanded into a great and independent nation, in other
words, the nation itself in its compactness and unity, appears as
the bringer, the possessor, and the medium of salvation. This
was, doubtless, an imperfect, undeveloped, and faulty shape for the
expectation of salvation to assume, but the age to which it belonged
was itself imperfect and undeveloped. The expansion of the
family into a nation could certainly not in itself bring salvation,
but it was the necessary condition, the preparation and first stage
of its full and ultimate manifestation; and, just for that reason,
in the expectations which prevailed at this time, the one was inseparably connected with the other. It was, no doubt, necessary
that before this expansion into a plurality could attain its ultimate and highest end, it must by an organic process be condensed into unity, since salvation could only be exhibited in its
perfect form in a personal Messiah, the noblest fruit and acK/Ju7 of
this unfolded plurality.  But before this fact could be made
known in prophecy, it was necessary that history should furnish
a substratum and starting point. So long, however, as the only
thing towards which their history pointed was the multiplication
of the people, the idea of a single personal Saviour could not
take root at all. This could only occur after their formation
into a great people was completed, and when it had become
apparent that the plurality of the nation must necessarily be concentrated in a single individual; in other words, after some one
man had arisen as the deliverer and redeemer, the leader and
ruler of the whole nation.  Hence the expectation of a personal
Messiah would first arise and assume a definite shape on the
appearance of Moses, Joshua, and David.  Accordingly the
earliest promise, which points to a personal Messiah, is found in
the Mosaic age, and even there it stands alone and is still somewhat indefinite (Deut. xviii. 18, 19), whilst it is only the history
of David which gives perfect clearness, certainty, and precision,
to the announcement of a personal Saviour.-But the expectations of the patriarchal age were all fixed upon the growth of the
family into a people; and as the fulfilment of their destiny




JACOB S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.           39
seemed to be wrapt up in this, it appears impossible that in such
an age salvation could have been regarded as dependant upon
any individual.   On the contrary, previous historical events
would lead to the conclusion, that isolation would retard the
desired end; for all the instances of separation and isolation that
had hitherto occurred had been such as involved exclusion from
the fellowship of the chosen people and from the call they had
received, and rendered it necessary that the progressive development from unity to plurality should begin again.
From what we have written, it follows that we are not justified
in expecting a priori the announcement of a personal Messiah,
or rather that, so far as the history of the patriarchs in the book
of Genesis affords us a glance at the progress of the ideas of
salvation in that age, we are justified in not expecting such an
announcement. Still this decision at the outset should not, and
shall not affect in any way our exegetical inquiry into the prophecy
in question.  For unless an unbiassed exposition of the prophecy should lead to results in harmony with our foregone
conclusion, the latter will have no objective worth, and it will
be impossible to sustain it. Should a just exposition show, that
the prophecy really treats of a personal Saviour, of one single
individual as the medium of salvation, we shall not for a moment
hesitate to accept this result, and shall willingly admit that we
have been deceived in our expectations.  But it will then be
necessary to assume that the lives of the patriarchs must have
presented some historical links of connexion with the promise of
a single personal Saviour, and that unless they are to be found
in the book of Genesis and have escaped our observation, the
author of that book must have omitted to notice them.- Our
present task will be to test the opinion, that the passage before
us must necessarily be interpreted as predictive of a personal,
individual Mlessiah.'
1 The objections offered to my views by Reinke (l.c. p. 184 sqq.), and
Delitzsch (Genesis p. 370), are removed by what has been said above. I
fully agree with the remark made by the latter in one of his earlier writings:
" History is not the measure, but the occasion of prophecy."  I also agree
as fully with what he now says: " We must not prescribe to prophecy, in
what way it shall proceed, or decide from the history of any period, how
much or how little it can prophesy, for the course of prophecy is often at
variance with human logic, as can be proved from unmistakeable examples,
and its telescopic vision often looks behind the hills, by which contemporary
history is bounded." That the former is not my intention, and that I am




40                           JJACOB.
Our first inquiry is, whether the construction and the connection will permit of our rendering the word Shiloh as the
subject of the sentence, which it must be if this opinion be correct.- WTe cannot accept without reserve the confident assertion of
Hofnmann (l.c. p. 117), that " the patriarch could not have turned
so completely away from Judah, and finished the sentence, which
related to him, by announcing the advent of a person, who is
not described as one of Judah's descendants, or even as connected in any with the posterity of Jacob."   For although the
words and the context undoubtedly sustain the correctness of
this view, yet the connexion between Judah and Shiloh, as his
descendant, might be regarded as naturally implied.   But both
the context and the train of thought require that we should
render Shliloh as the object.  In Hofmjann's words: "' The expression ~: -y), until, leads us to expect an announcement of
Judah's future history, and of the result of his maintaining uninterrupted possession of his princely rank. And since, when we
pass from the first half of the verse to the second, we hasve no
reason to expect any other subject than Judah, we ought to receive
proofs not only of the possibility, but also of the necessity of taking
Shziloh to be a person and to be the subject of age."  But, as we
shall presently show, no such proof can be given. On the other
hand, the structure of the tenth verse will only admit of its being
rendered as the object; for if we render it as the subject, we at
once destroy the parallelism of thought between the two clauses
not unaware of the latter, will, I hope, be sufficiently attested by what
I have already said. But when Delitzsch adds: " In the present instance it
is not true that the continuous progress is interrupted, if the word Shiloh in
the mouth of Jacob denotes the person of the Messiah, since the next great
prophecy (that of Balaam, Num. xxiv. 15 sqq.) views the Messiah under
the image of a star or sceptre coming out of Jacob," &c., he does not appear
to have read what I have written above respecting Moses, Joshua, and David
as historical links to which the idea of an individual Messiah could be attached. Whether Balaam's prophecy actually referred to this, and, if so, to
what extent, are questions which cannot be discussed here. But I must confess
that I cannot see the drift of Delitzsch's argument. It is with the meaning of
Jacob's prophecy that we have to do, not with that of Balaam. I have myself
shown that the foundation was laid in the time of Moses for the expectation
of a personal Messiah, though I do not admit that it had been laid 400 years
before. And this can never be proved by attaching Balaam's prophecy, by
way of explanation, to that of Jacob.  But Delitzsch himself does not interpret Jacob's words as predictive of a personal Messiah. And if this scholar
went to the examination of the prophecy with the expectation of finding a
personal Messiah, and yet did not find one, this surely favours the conclusion
that his expectation was unfounded and mine correct.




JACOB S PROPHETiC BLESSING ON HIs SONS.        41
AmpJ Amn-: 9'y and ian: Dnrq 9tW and this parallelism
is required by the arrangement of the verse.  In the two
clauses, "till the Messiah come," "and to him the obedience
of the nations," there is no parallelism at all, but merely
a progress in the thought.  If, however, we regard Shiloh as
the object, and take Judah as the subject from the previous
clause, the two clauses, "till Judah come to rest," "and the
obedience of the  nations shall be his portion," harmonize
beautifully; for the obedience of the nations, who cheerfully and
without resistance submit to Judah's rule, forms a part of the
rest, which Judahl enjoys, after the victorious conflict just described.
The foregoing remarks apply to every interpretation, which
refers the expression to a _oersoncal llessiah.  We shall now
examine them  singly.  One of the earliest would read'.'
instead of't7,  and regards the former as equivalent to
-W'.5-ibW-f htt,;9.'= ~.   2U   is then supplied from the previous
clause, and the whole passage rendered thus: " Judah shall retain
the sceptre, until he come, to whom it (viz., the sceptre) belongs."  The SeptuagiJnt rendering is based upon this view: &o3
eayv ehO~ Ta acTroLcetOKeva aVTG (donec veniant quae ei reservata
sunt), or, according to another reading, o a'7ro6ceLTaL (donec veniat,
cui reservatum est); and most of the early versions translate the
words in a similar way.  The principal defenders of this view
in modern times have been Jahn (vaticinia mess. ii. 179 sqq.,
Einl. i. 507 sqq.); Sack, christl. Apol. ii. A. S. 266 sqq.; Larsow
(Uebers. d. Genesis); and Hferd (mess. Weiss. ii., p. 33 sqq.).
But this explanation will not bear an impartial examination;
for, first, the fa'vourite ellipsis is unparalleled in its harshness;
secondly, we are compelled to act in the most arbitrary manner,
by pronouncing;T'~  the original reading, whereas it is found
in very few MSS., and is evidently merely scriptio defectiva for
the common reading,$'5; and lastly, we must declare in a
dictatorial way the admissibility of the inadmissible pointing,' t7W for,- -J.   But even supposing that this were granted, or
if we determined to follow v. Bohlen and read;'t~ at once,
even then the sense and the connexion of the verse would compel
us to protest against the interpretation. For if it were said,




42                       JACOB.
" Judah shall retain the sceptre, till he come whose it is (to
whom it belongs)," there would be a most inappropriate contrast
drawn between Judah, who holds the sceptre, and the Messiah,
to whom it belongs, from which it would follow, that the sceptre
does not belong to Judah; and there would also be a not less
unfounded announcement that Judah, the blessed, would one day
resign, i.e., lose the sceptre.-There are two things which seem
to favour this explanation, the unanimity of the earlier translators, and an analogous passage in Ezek. xxi. 32, %'  n-'T_
n.'-,t  which might be regarded as an exposition and paraphrase of our word WAXY (Shiloh). But the two testimonies
may be reduced to one, for the early translators have evidently
taken the passage in Ezekiel as the foundation of their rendering
of the obscure or doubtful word Shiloh, which explains their
general agreement. And the proof afforded by the passage in
Ezekiel also loses its worth; for whilst there is an undeniable
identity of thought between the translators and Ezekiel, the original Hebrew of the passage in Genesis and the passage in Ezekiel
have too little in common, to lead us for a moment to suppose
that there was any reference in the latter to the former. Moreover, the two passages are totally different in other respects, for
whilst Ezekiel announces ruin and devastation, which will last
till he come, to whom the government belongs, the passage in
Genesis would speak of victory and governnment, which will last
till he come, to whom the government belongs.
A far more plausible interpretation is that which derives the
word Shiloh from the root %t?, adopts the meaning rest, and,
regarding this as abstract for concrete, renders it the bringer of
rest.  This view is the most prevalent of all. Among its more
modern supporters are iosenmidler (ad. h. 1.), Winer (hebr. lex.
s. h. v.), Baumgarten-Crusius (bibl. theol. p. 368), Hengstenberg (christol. i. 59 sqq., Engl. transl.), Reinke (ut supra),
and many others. The supposition, that the abstract is used for
the concrete, is undoubtedly admissible, and we adhere to the
derivation of Shiloh from;t2  in the appellative sense of
"rest," or " the place in which rest is found," in spite of the opposition of Tuch (Comm. p. 575 sqq.), and Delitzsch (Comm. p.
372 sqq ), who do not appear to me to have answered the arguments by which Hengstenberg (Christol. i. 59 transl.), and




JACOB S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.      43
Hofmrann (Weiss. i. 116), have defended this derivation.-An
objection might, no doubt,.be offered to the rendering tranquillator, as  %V  does not mean to bring peace, but to enjoy peace
(Gesenius, lex. salvus, securus, maxime de eo qui _prospera
fortuna secure utitur); but A.l$.Ej might be taken as descriptive
of a person, in whom the full enjoyment of rest and peace is first
apparent. We should therefore decide at once in favour of this
view, were it not for the two difficulties, which have been more
fully explained above, (1), That Shiloh must be regarded as the
object of the verb, according to the sense, the context, and the
structure of the verse; and (2), That the expectation of a personal Messiah was entirely foreign to the patriarchal age.'
The second objection does not affect the explanation given by
Gesenius (lex. s. v.), who preserves the abstract signification of
the word, and translates the passage: " until the rest (sc. of the
Messianic age) come, and to him  (sc. Judah) the obedience of
the nations."  But the first objection still applies, and in addition to that, the reference of the suffix in jt to Judah is no
longer admissible, if another subject be introduced, as the nominative of Aqn, in the intermediate clause.  The suffix would
then necessarily refer to Shiloh, the nominative of the verb, and
the latter must in that case be regarded as a concrete noun.
( Vi. Hofmann, ut sup. 116).
Some of the earlier expositors (Jonathan, Calvin, &c.) imagine Shiloh to mean his (i.e. Judah's) son or descendant.  But
there is no foundation whatever for the assumption that the
word C)t, with the meaning son, ever existed.  (Vid. lengstenbery, Christol. p. 63, 64 transl.)
Of all the explanations, which reject the Messianic reference,
the only one of any importance is that which supposes Shiloh to
be the name of the well-known city of Ephraim, where the tabernacle was erected when the Israelites entered the promised
land.  This opinion is supported by Eichhorn, Ammon, Bleek
(de libri Gen. origine), Tuch, Hitzig (ad Ps. ii. 2), and others.
The meaning of the passage is supposed to be that the tribe of
Judah should take the first place, and be the leader of the tribes
during the whole of the march through the desert, until they
arrived at Shiloh. The only thing that can be said in favour of
this explanation is, that in every other passage of the Old Tes



44                         JAOo,
tament, in which the word Shiloh occurs, it refers to this city
of Ephraimn.  But every one will admit that this argument does
not amount to a positive proof; that, at the best, it merely establishes to a certain extent the probability that there is the
same reference in the passage before us. But this probability is
more than counterbalanced by the number of arguments on the
opposite side.  First of all this explanation brings in a subject
to the verb All, which is quite foreign to the context; for as we
have already shown, Judah must be the nominative. But apart
from this, there is an insupportable harshness in the neuter and
collective subject thus introduced (" until they [man] or the
people come to Shiloh.")  It is true that this might be avoided
by translating the clause: " until he (Judah) come to Shiloh;"
but as it is impossible to see what Judah had to do as a tribe
with this city of Ephraim, in contradistinction from the other
tribes, there is no other resource than to fall back upon a collective subject; for although Shiloh was a spot of great importance
as a resting-place or turning-point in the Israelitish history, it
was not important to Judah alone, but to all the tribes in common.  This explanation then loses its force unless the blessing
of Jacob be regarded as a vaticinium 1post eventum, composed at
a later period, say for example the time of David.  For what
should have led the aged patriarch to associate the glory and
goal of Judah or his descendants with a place of so little importance, which is never mentioned anywhere before the time of'
Joshua, and probably owes both its name and its existence to
the circumstance that it was there that Joshua pitched his tent,
and set up the tabernacle (Hengstenberg, Christol. i. 80, transl.)?
How bare and miserable would it have appeared, even if Shiloh
were really in existence as a small town at the time, for Jacob to
introduce in such high-flown terms, and in the midst of such
splendid promises, the prediction that Judah would arrive at
Shiloh!  The assumption that the blessing was composed at
some period subsequent to Joshua is overthrown by the most
decisive and unanswerable objections, as we shall presently show,
and in general is merely a loophole to save a foregone conclusion,
that actual prophecies are impossible.  But, even supposing that
the blessing describes some future event, and does this under the
fictitious appearance of prophecy, was there ever a period in
which Shiloh was of such importance that the author; whoever




JACOB'S PROPHIETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.         45
lie might be, could possibly regard' it as the representative of the
highest and most perfect glory of his people's history, a glory so
brilliant that no greater could be imagined or desired?  Moreover, the period to which the composition of the blessing has
been assigned, that of the latest Judges and of David, was one in
which the importance and glory of Shiloh had considerably declined.-And what can be made of the promise that the sceptre
and dominion should be retained by Judah till the settlement
in Shiloh?   Was this fulfilled? or fulfilled with such completeness in the details as we should expect in the case of a
vaticinium post eventum?  Bleek (p. 19) thinks that this can
be answered in the affirmative.  Judah conducted his brethren
till the promised land was conquered, and after that Ephrain
took the lead.  But Hofmann (p. 115) has shown that there is
no foundation for the statement: "for no one would pretend
that the blessing was fulfilled because the tribe of Judah took
theforemost place in the army during the journey through the
wilderness (Num. ii. 3).1  The whole army was commanded at
that time by a Levite, and after him by an Ephraimite." It
was not till long after Shiloh had been fixed upon as the site for
the tabernacle, i.e. not before but after the terminus ad quem,
to which our prophecy points, that we meet with the first indication of Judah's actual supremacy (Judges i. 2), but then it
did not continue without interruption through the period of the
Judges, so that the tribe of Judah did not rise to any decided
pre-eminence until David was king. How then could the blessing be applicable to Judah, if, in the midst of the splendid acquisition of power and glory, which was to distinguish this tribe
from all the rest, Jacob had announced to him that the consummation of the whole would be that he would lose his supremacy as soon as Shiloh was reached? To avoid these difficulties
Tuch translates the clause: " so long as they are assembled in
Shiloh, i.e. for ever."  But Hofmann has pointed out no less than
five fallacies in this pretended improvement.  It gives to. -A_
1 We mean of course from the point of view from which this explanation
is arrived at, viz., the notion that we have here a vaticinium  post eventum,
and that the author meant to say that Judah's supremacy ceased at the encampment in Shiloh. For such a prophecy presupposes an outward harmony
in matters of detail such as no one will be able to discover between the
supremacy of Judah predicted here, and his position in the order of encampment and march during the journey through the wilderness.




46                       JACOB.
a meaning which it does not possess, it always means " until,"
never " so long as;" it attributes to A:: a subject which is not
to be found in the context; " it makes the writer express a hope
that the circumstances which prevented Israel from enjoying
rest, and hindered the removal of the tabernacle to a permanent
resting-place, would last for ever; and lastly, it supposes the
perpetual duration of the supremacy of Judah to be dependant
upon a state of things, the cessation of which is referred to by
Asaph as most intimately connected with the origin of that
supremacy" (Ps. lxxviii. 60, 67-72).
We now return to our own explanation. The meaning of the
prophecy is that Judah shall remain in uninterrupted possession
of the rank of prince among his brethren, until through conflict
and victory he has reached the object, and made the fullest display, of his supremacy, in his own enjoyment of peaceful rest,
and the cheerful obedience of the nations to his rule. Hence
the terminus ad quem, which is mentioned here, does not set
before us the limit or the termination of his supremacy, but rather
the commencement of his secure and irresistible sway. And
from this it follows quite as naturally, that the victory gained
by Judah, and the blessings of peace which he secures, are shared
by his brethren in all their fulness, because he fights as the prince
and champion of his brethren; and not only so, but the blessings
of this peace must necessarily be extended to all the nations, who
now cheerfully obey him.
To what period, then, does the word " until" refer? First of
all, it refers, no doubt, to that period of which the whole blessing treats, the full possession of the promised land. This is in
Jacob's view the commencement of the ~s~ nn-,  the last
time, the time of the consummation. To him the relative peace,
which closed the strange and pilgrim life of his descendants, and
the absolute peace, which is the aim and end of all the movements that originated in the call of Abraham, are one and the
same. That which proves in reality to be a long continuous
line, extending from the commencement of the comparative rest
under Joshua to the final attainment of absolute peace under
Christ, necessarily appeared from his prophetic stand-point to be
merely a single point, since the first point covered the last as
well as the intermediate line; or rather because the commence



JACOB S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.     47
ment contained the end, and only exhibited it in a typical form.
The first preliminary and imperfect manifestation of the peace
here promised was made in the time of Joshua; but the disturbances, to which this peace was exposed, soon proved it to be
only a preliminary fulfilment of the promise. Whilst, therefore,
the comparative rest enjoyed under Joshua was in one respect a
fulfilment of Jacob's prophecy, in other respects it continued, on
account of existing disturbances, to be still a prediction, pointing
for its highest and final fulfilment to the entrance of absolute
rest.
It was Judah's position and bearing, both as a prince over his
brethren, and in his victorious engagements with his enemies,
which secured the enjoyment of rest and peace. In proportion,
then, as the rest predicted by Jacob was enjoyed in the time of
Joshua, must the supremacy of Judah have been exercised
before that time. If, therefore, the rest which was then enjoyed
was true and absolute rest, the supremacy of Judah must have
been manifested in its most perfect form before the days of
Joshua.  But if Jacob's prediction of future rest remained a
prediction, as we have seen that it did, even after its first and
preliminary fulfilment under Joshua, then must the prediction
of Judah's supremacy have been only partially fulfilled in the
period antecedent to Joshua, and after its first fulfilment in the
lead taken by the tribe of Judah in the order of encampment
and march through the wilderness,-it must still have continued
a prophecy pointing onward to an ever-increasing supremacy on
the part of Judah, the loftiest eminence of which would as far
surpass its first appearance before the time of Joshua, as the
comparative rest enjoyed in the days of the latter would be surpassed by the absolute rest secured by Christ.
Jacob's prophecy of the future rest, which Judah would enjoy in
common with his brethren, whose prince, representative, and champion he was, points forward to the end. In Jacob's view, indeed,
the time of Joshua was the end, for in his days all the wants of
the patriarchal age, of which Jacob was conscious, were satisfied,
and all the prerequisites of salvation, so far as Jacob was acquainted with them, were fully met.  But there were other
wants and other prerequisites, of which Jacob was not aware,
and which were not supplied,in the time of Joshua, and therefore, objectively considered, that time was not the end. In the




48                        JACOB.
prophecy of Jacob there was not only the subjective element, the
product and expression of the mind of Jacob, but an objective
element also, communicated to the mind of the patriarch by the
illuminating influence of the Spirit of God. And hence for
every succeeding stand-point this prophecy points upward to
a higher form of Judah's supremacy, than the position of his
tribe in the journey through the desert, and a rest superior to
that produced by the occupation of the promised land.
Though we felt obliged just now to oppose the notion that
Jacob had any thought of a personal Messiah, when pronouncing his blessing, yet we by no means question its tlfessianic
character, as will be clearly seen from what we have already
said. The announcement made by Jacob, that he was about to
tell his sons what should befall them in the end of the days, indicates the Messianic character of the whole blessing, for " the
end of the days" is the Messianic period. But most of all is the
Messianic character apparent in the blessing pronounced on
Judah, for this is unmistakeably the leading member of the
whole prophecy, the centre, as it were, from which radiates all
that the other blessings contain of a Messianic character, viz., the
ultimate and certain enjoyment of rest and peace. It is Judah,
who opens the way to repose, as the leader and champion of his
brethren.
The characteristics of the Messianic idea, so far as it had yet
been evolved by history and prophecy, re-appear in the sentence
pronounced on Judah. For it not only announces the unparalleled
blessing, which is destined for the seed of Abraham, but points
out the benefits to be conferred by that seed upon other nations.
The obedience of the nations, though won by conflict, is to be
cheerfully rendered, and Judah's supremacy is no hard and heavy
yoke, but mild and pleasant, dispensing blessings and bringing
peace. The proof of this is found in the description of the pleasure of peace, to which Judah now yields himself, and the mild
and gentle character which he is able to assume.
The Messianic idea is still essentially the same stage of development as in previous prophecies. This is not to be wondered
at, as we are still at the same stage in the historical development as before, viz., the family history.  Wve find the Messianic
idea in the same contracted form, with salvation still concealed in
the shell of earthly good and material prosperity, though in the




JACOB'S13  PROPHETIC BLESSING ON 1-S SONS.  49
actual kernel there are blessings of a purely spiritual character
enclosed.  The idea of salvation we find still as indefinite as
before; as yet it has assumed no concrete shape.  So much
indeed is certain, that all the nations of the earth are to be
blessed in Abraham's seed; but nothing further is revealed.
Yet the way is paved for a further step in the progress of the
prophecy, though that step is not yet taken.  The new feature
introduced is the designation of Judah as the chief among his
brethren, who fights as their champion at their head, and secures
for them rest, peace, and salvation.  But, as we have already
shown, this cannot have been understood by either the speaker
or the hearer as meaning that the tribe of Judah was to be the
sole medium of salvation, to the exclusion of the other tribes,
much less that the tribe of Judah was to be shut out from the
task, and the whole to be performed by a single member of that
tribe.  Still in the fact that, when the attainment of rest, and
peace, alnd salvation is spoken of, Judah is named as the prince
and leader of his brethren, the way is opened for the proper
separation of Judah, as required by the Messianic idea.  And
as soon as their desires should be satisfied, and the first condition of the call of Israel fulfilled by their becoming a great
people, they would be sure to learn from the results that
this alone could not ensure the object for which they had
been called.  Thus it was soon discovered to be necessary
that the plurality should be again concentrated in unity. And
when such men as Moses, Joshua, and David had risen up
as deliverers and redeemers, as leaders and governors of the
whole nation, and by their history had furnished a substratum on which the idea of a personal Messiah could be founded,
the prophecy before us necessarily led to the association of this
idea with the tribe of Judah, arld that with the greater facility
since this tribe had risen in the meantime to a position of increasing prominence.
Delitzsch, in his latest work (Ausleg. d. Genesis p. 373 sqq.),
has revived the opinion, which was first employed in the cause
of rationalism, that Shiloh refers to the well known-city of
Ephraim in this, as in every other passage of the Old Testament
in which it occurs. The meaning, which he gives to it, however,
is essentially the same as that which we have arrived at in
another way.  He says: " Judah occupied the first place in the
VOL. II.                                     1)




t50                       J ACOB.
camp, and when the Israelites were marching, Judah always led
the way.  This position he maintained till he came to Shiloh;
for when the conquered land was divided, Judah was the first to
receive his share (Josh. xv.).  The division of the land of
Canaan, which took place at the tabernacle, that had been set
up at Shiloh, forms without doubt the boundary line between
two periods in the history of Israel. Their arrival at Shiloh
brought their wanderings and conflicts to a close, and formed at
the same time the commencement of their settlement in full
possession of the land. Shiloh was thus, as its name implied,
the place of Israel's rest." But even with this explanation we
cannot give in our adhesion to the opinion; for many of the objections, already offered to it in its rationalistic form, are equally
applicable to it in its present shape. So accidental an event, as
the selection of Shiloh, rather than any other town, as a temporary resting-place for the tabernacle, could not have been a
subject for prophecy. We admit that the settlement at Shiloh
was a boundary line in the history of Israel, and that as such it
might very well be a subject for prophecy.  But the settlement
itself, the acquisition of a resting-place, was all that was essential;
the choice of Shiloh in preference to any other place was something unessential and accidental, with which prophecy had no
concern.  Not that we would for a moment dispute the fact that
the form in which the idea of a prophecy is expressed often
coincides in a remarkable way with the (accidental) form, in
which the prediction is fulfilled. But we most firmly deny,
that the sons of Jacob could have looked upon this insignificant
town (even if it then existed), as the end of their dying father's
prophecies. Still we are certainly inclined to recognise a connexion between the Shiloh, in which the tabernacle was placed,
and the Shiloh referred to in Jacob's prophecy; only, we regard
the former as dependent upon the latter, as M. Baumgarten
does, and not the latter upon the former, which is Delitzsch's
opinion.  For it appears to us a very probable thing, that the
Israelites gave the name of Shiloh to the place in which they
rested for the first time, and set up the sanctuary after their
victorious conflict with the Canaanites, and that they did so with
a conscious reference to the blessing of the patriarch, and as a
sign and testimony that his prophecy had here received its preliminary fulfilment. Moreover, we can readily conceive that, in




JACOB'S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.        51
the fulness of their first delight at the enjoyment of rest, they
might look upon this as the complete and adequate fulfilment
of the prophecy, and overlook the troubles that were still before
them.
(4). The " grammatico-historical method of exposition," as
the rationalistic exegesis is called, starts from the concession,
that Jacob's blessing is descriptive of circumstances, which had
no existence till after his descendants had taken possession of
Canaan. It professes " to leave the dispute as to the possible or
impossible composition of the piece by Jacob to those, whose
special interest it is to cultivate without effect this barren soil."
But yet regarding it as above all things certain that a real prophecy is thoroughly incredible, it denies that it was written by
either Jacob or Moses, and then proceeds " in a conclusive (?!)
way to determine the date of the composition on historical
grounds."  (Tuch comm. p. 554 seq.).  But the safety of the
"conclusive" method, to which this " grammatico-historical"
criticism lays claim, is not confirmed by the many different and
discordant results to which it leads. Heinrichs, for example, in
his commentatio de auctore atque aetate cap. Gen. xlix. (Gdttingen 1790), and Friedrich in " der Segen Jakobs, eine Weissagung des Proph. Nathan (Breslau 1811), confine themselves
to the blessing pronounced on Judah, and pretend that they
have demonstrated that it was written in the time of Davidl;
TucTh, who considers the blessing of Levi the safest criterion,
considers it indisputable, that it was composed in the time of
Samuel; whilst Erwald (Gesch. i. 80), appeals to the blessing on
Dan as sufficient to establish the fact that it was written in the
latter half of the period of the Judges, most likely during the
life of Samson.
It so happens, however, that the data which we possess for
fixing the time of its composition are so numerous, so decisive,
and so favourable, that there is scarcely any disputed passage in
the Old Testament, whose authenticity is as certain as that of
Jacob's blessing.  For (1), its style is not at all that of a
vaticinium post eventum; (2), it can be proved that there was
no one period post eventum vaticinii, i.e., after the conquest of
the promised land by Joshua, in which all the different expressions could have been written; (3), the blessing itself contains
positive data, which compel us to assign it to a prae-Mosaic age;
D 2




.t)ES~2  ~          JACOB.
and (4), the matter and the form are perfectly in harmony with
the views and expectations of the patriarch, and there is nothing
which we mlight not expect him to say, always supposing that
he was enabled to look into the future by a prophetic inspiration.
We have already shown how completely this prophetic picture
harmonizes with the historical background, on which it is drawn,
how perfectly the substance of it tallies with the patriarclh's state
of mind, his views, his desires, and his expectations at the time.
And as, on the one hand, there is nothing to hinder our receiving
the song as an actual prophecy, and recognising the historical
frame in which it is set; so on the other, are we led by a careful and unprejudiced examination to the inevitable conclusion
that the blessing is not a vaticinium post eventum  either in
whole or in part, and that there is a total absence of the characteristic marks of such pretended prophecies.  A reeat prophecy
looks from the present into the future, or rather it sees the future
in the present.  The germs and prefornmations of the future,
which are already discernible in the present, and all the imperfections and wants, of which there is an existing consciousness,
are viewed by it in the light of God, not merely as germs and
deficiencies, but in that state of perfect development, towards
which they are striving and at which they must of necessity
arrive.  At the same time the variousph7ases, through which
the maturity of these germs and the satisfaction of' these wants
will be actually attained, and the outward forms, which they
will eventually assume, are not made known even by this real
prophecy, inasmuch as the conditions of both of these will be
ldetermined by the course of history, and therefore there is as yet
no existing substratum or point of contact for such a prophecy.
Hence, however definite a prophecy may be in relation to the
idea, and however keen and clear its gaze, yet in respect of the
outward forms, in which the idea will appear, it is always general
and indefinite.  Still more, if we compare the prophecy with the
details of its fulfilment, we shall generally notice an apparent
want of congruity between them. The cause of this will be found
partly in the fact that in the prophecy we have but a single field
of view in which everything is represented in its perfect form,
whereas in the actual fulfilment there are successive stages,.ttended by many oscillations an.d by retrograde as well as pro



JACOB S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.         53
cgressive movements; and partly also from the fact that, in order
to give expression to the idea, with which alone it is concerned,
it clothes it in a certain drapery, which is intended for no other
puirpose than this, and therefore very frequently is not found to
harmonize exactly with the outward form eventually assumed.
This is not the case with _pretended prophecies. They clothe in
the garb of prophecy events which have actually occurred. However great, then, the anxiety to avoid every thing that could
betray their real character, they cannot so far overlook the concrete phenomena which lies before them, as to assume the features
of a true prophecy in sufficient measure to hide the fraud. And
where they are the result of an ingenious illusion, of a character
not absolutely evil, where there is therefore not a distinct consciousness of any intention to deceive, there is sure to be all the
less ability or disposition to disguise.
If, now, we apply this test to the prophecy before us, we shall
be constrained to confess, that it bears the marks of a real prophecy, and not of a vaticiniipost eventum.  It is true, the opposite has been asserted with the greatest confidence.  The special
details given in the blessing, and their peculiar harmony with
the fulfilment, are appealed to aas removing all doubt that we
have here only a masked copy of the present, and not a real
prediction of the future.  But, notwithstanding these, the blessing in whole and in part is expressed in such general terms, its
descriptions are so free from  any sharply defined sketches, any
concrete forms, and any reference to such accidental circumstances, as are only of importance to the age itself; and are so little
in harmony with the external, accidental circumstances of the
period, of which it is descriptive, that the idea of a vaticinii
post eventumrn is thoroughly inadmissible.  We have clearly a
case before us, in which the prophecy is too definite in certain
respects, to be merely the product of natural intuition or subjective anticipation, and yet is too indefinite in its general character and in some of its details to have been written after the
event.  Rationalistic criticism, therefore, as it has no third to
fall back upon, naturally attempts through thick and thin to
prove one of these two.
We may get an idea of the indefinite and general manner, in
which throughout, the whole blessing concrete forms and special
inccidents are referred to. froni the blesslings l ri1ounced on Judah




154                      J&COB.
and Joseph. Each of these occupies almost as much space as all
the others put together. We see that the author was desirous
of giving a much fuller description of their prospects, that he
entered con amore upon this description, and wished to dwell as
long as possible upon the picture of their lot, and of their superiority to all their brethren. If now he had taken his materials
and his colours from the past or the present, his description
would surely be full of references to special details, and rich in
concrete forms. Yet how indefinite the two blessings actually
are! We find only general ideas and references to lion-like
courage and strength for battle, to victory and dominion, to fulness of blessings and pre-eminence of rank, all of which resemble
the external events only so far as was absolutely necessary to
produce the impression required. Who is there that would for
a moment assert that these blessings can only have been copied
from events which had actually occurred?  The whole blessing
is acknowledged to point to the completion of the conquest of
the promised land and the distribution of that land among the
twelve tribes; and how little do we find, in either of these sections, that is characteristic of the period referred to! If we did
not know it beforehand, who would be able to discover a reference to the provinces allotted to the two tribes in the promise to
Judah of an abundant supply of wine and milk, and to Joseph
of dew and rain, or to recognise in these the distinguishing characteristics of each of those provinces? It is only in the prediction of Judah's supremacy that it could possibly be maintained,
that the general idea assumes a concrete, external form;-but
even here there is so little outward resemblance to the circumstances, which really existed at the supposed date of its composition, that it is still necessary to assume that the subsequent glory
of this tribe was anticipated by the author, a fact which may be
assumed in the case of an actual prophecy, but not where the
prophecy is merely feigned.
We shall now pass on to the other blessings. The writer says
nothing about the circumstances and possessions of the tribe of
Reuben.  How inexplicable is this in the case of a vaticiniumr
post eventum! However insigificant the tribe may have been,
and though its province may not have been within the limits of
Canaan proper, yet the same may be said of Gad and the halftribe of Manasseh, and of these the author has something to say.




JACOB'S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.      55
it is not difficult to understand why Jacob should only speak of
Reuben himself, and say nothing about his tribe except that it
would not take the lead; but we cannot conceive how a contemporary of Samson, or Samuel, or David, could so entirely overlook the tribe, as to mention the founder alone, or how he
could record the curse pronounced on Reuben, without shewing
how, where, or by what means the effect of the curse was manifest in the history of the tribe.
Simeon and Levi receive precisely the same blessing.  There
is apparently no difference whatever in their lot. They are both
to be scattered in Israel.  Now Jacob might express himself in
this way, but not a writer who saw how completely different
were the modes of their dispersion.  Tuch is right in saying
that " Situeon received his inheritance in the midst of the tribe
of Judah," but he goes further than he has any right to go when
he adds " but without any continuous boundaries" (vid. Keil's
commentary on Joshua p. 419, translation Clark's For. Theol.
Lib.). Again, how different was this distribution of Simeon from
that of Levi! So different, that a later writer could not possibly
have employed the same words to describe them both.
To the tribe of Zebulon there is promised a dwelling-place on
the sea-shore and near to the Phoenician city of Sidon.  Here
certainly there is something, which offers apparently no little
support to the views of our opponents, and if all the blessings
referred to the future in the same manner, there would be some
ground for the notion of a vaticiniumn post eventum. But if the
minuteness and precision, with which the blessings are here
described, appear to furnish an argument to our opponents, they
are immediately deprived of it by the want of congruity between
the prophecy and its fulfilment.  " If the prophecy of Jacob
had been written post eventum, there would certainly have been
greater geographical accuracy, and the description of the boundary towards Sidon would have belonged to Asher (Josh. xix.
28) rather than to Zebulon" (Ba-umgarten).  So far as it is
possible to determine the boundaries of the tribe of Zebulon
from the book of Joshua (chap. xix. 10 —16), they did not touch
the sea at all (Keil's commentary on Joshua p. 422 sqq., Martin's translation). If, then, the blessing pronounced on Zebulon
cannot have been a description taken from existing circumstances, since it is only partially in harmony with the circunil



.N C).t.ACOB.
stances of Joshua's days, there must certainly have been something in Zebulon himself, the founder of the tribe, which led
Jacob to place him by the sea, and which furnished a substratum
and a starting point for the prophecy.  The fact, that we do not
know what the reason was, is no argument against its existence.
Issachcar is represented as a strong but lazy nomad, who enjoys
the fruits of peace in his fertile and genial inheritance in a state
of careless repose, and who puts up with many an inconvenience
rather than disturb his comfortable rest by a firm and warlike
bearing. But from what we know of the condition of this tribe in
the period of the Judges, the prophecy is by no means so completely in harmony with it, as we should expect it to be if taken
from the facts; for it was "just this tribe of Issachar, together
with that of Zebulon, which acquired such renown for heroic
bravery (Judg. v. 14, 15, 18), whereas Reuben, Dan, and Asher
remained inactive." If the author lived, as is supposed, at a later
age, he must have been aware of this, and it is pure imagination
to say that this heroic courage gave place to cowardice in the
second half of the period of the Judges. But the agreement
between the blessing and its fulfilment is to be found, not in
any single outward event, occurring at a particular period of
time, but in the general characteristics of the history of the
tribe.  And here, as in all the other sections, the whole of the
history of the tribe subsequently to the conquest of the land is
compressed into one single field of view.
With reference to the prediction concerning Dan, Ewald says
(p. 81): " This clearly points to the times of Samson and to his
administration of the office of judge; for then the small tribe of
Dan could take its place by the side of any other tribe, however
great it might be, possessing as it did in Samson a judge and
leader, of whomn it could be proud, whose success for a time at least
was great, and under whom, though small and oppressed, it boldly
resisted the pride of the Philistines, as a snake craftily conquers
a powerful rider. And the greater the certainty that this attitude of the tribe under Samson was transient and without important results, the stronger is the evidence that such a description
must have been written during Samson's brief' and successful
career."  The argument is plausible enough, but it is nothing
more.  For the miserable and despicable state of Judah in
the time of Samson, the cowardice and want of comnnon —sense




JACOB S PROPHETIC BLESSINCr ON HIS SONS.        7
which were manifested by it at that period (Judg. xv. 9 sqq.),
when contrasted with the proud picture of the lion-like courage,
the conquest, the leadership, and the supremacy of Judah, as
set forth in this blessing, are totally irreconcileable with Ewald's
opinions.  Moreover, his views with regard to Dan and Samson
are founded upon a misapprehension of the true characteristics
of the office of judge, which Samson filled.  For even though
all the miraculous and wonderful accounts of Samson's deeds
were really myths, as Ewald says, yet so much would certainly
be left as a historical residzuum, that Samson was distinguished
from all the previous judges, by the fact that through his own
fault he was isolated, not only from the general body of the
tribes, but even from his own, that he was left to fight alone on
account of the torn and heartless state of the tines, and therefore, that the most gigantic exertions and the most striking
success on his part were nearly if not totally barren of permanent results.  ~We can hardly imagine a contemporary ascribing so unreservedly to the whole tribe, what was not merely
achieved by a single member of that tribe, but by one who was
left alone and forsaken by all the rest.  Still, it cannot but
appear strange that just this and no other tribe should be
selected for the office of judge, and that it should be done in
such a manner (for how came the patriarch to be so specific in
this instance?); and this fact would furnish an almost untanswerable argument in favour of Ewvald's views, were it not that
the name of the tribe affords a sufficient explanation of so striking a phenomnenon.  Wherever it is possible, the blessings are
founded upon an explanation of the name, and the favourite
lmotto of the patriarchal age " normen labet omen" was a sufficient starting-point for Jacob's prediction that Dan, the judge,
should judge his people.
There is nothing special and concrete in the blessing of Gad,
a triple play upon the name is all that we find in the prophecy
concerning this tribe.  Asher is promised a rich and fertile territory in such general terms, that there is no indication of a
vaticinium post eventum.  The blessing on Napl tali and that
on Benjamin have none of the characteristic marks, which we
should look for in a description drawn from existing events. And
the fact that the tribe of Joseph is only referred to in its united
form, tlhat no particular reference is made to the powerlfil tribe




58                        JACOt.
of Ephraim, and that nothing is said about the geographical
separation of Manasseh, which might have been described as
"divided in Jacob" with even greater justice than that of
Simeon, can hardly be reconciled with the assumption of a
vaticinium _post eventurnm.
The views of our opponents are not merely at variance with
the individual blessings, but also with the introductory clause,
supposing, that is, that the words " in the last days " are to be
taken as descriptive of the final era, the time of consummation,
as we showed above that they necessarily must be.  For a contemporary of Samson, or Samuel, or David would not have been
very likely to speak of his age as the time of perfection, when
there were still so many perceptible wants and deficiencies, and
so many germs and unfinished beginnings.
There is a decisive proof of the pre-Mosaic origin of the
blessing in the address to Levi.  V. Bohlen is perfectly right
when he maintains (p. 453) that Levi cannot have been a priestly
tribe at the time when this song was composed; but he jumps
to a wrong conclusion when he infers from this that the tribe of
Levi cannot have obtained exclusive possession of the priesthood till after the time of Moses; for if there is one thing connected with the early history of Israel, which is indisputably
established, it is the fact that the priesthood was conferred
upon the Levites by Moses himself (Tuch p. 557).  But this
address does not contain one syllable about the priesthood, nor is
there the slightest hint, or reference, from which it could be inferred that the author knew that it had been bestowed upon
Levi.  Tuch further adds, it is true, that " the scattering in
Israel, to which our author refers, proceeded from Levi's priestly
vocation." But this is evidently eisegesis, not exegesis; the scat —
tering, " to which our author refers," is merely the consequence
of the curse, which is here pronounced upon Levi; it is a fit
punishment for that perverse union for perverse ends, in which
he had sinfully taken part. This curse was changed into a
blessing when the sinful combination and ungodly zeal for which
the patriarch had merited dispersion as a cur'se were cancelled
by the proper association and godly zeal, for which the tribe of
Levi merited dispersion as a blessing and a favour (Ex. xxxii.
27-29).  The outward form remained the same, but the reason
of it, and therefore its real nature, were entirely changed.  If
a




JACOB'S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.      59
the author had already known the tribe of Levi as a priestly
tribe, he could not, with his religious, Israelitish mind, have
passed over the priesthood in silence, when it must have appeared to him as the essence and guiding star of the whole constitution. He could not possibly have described the dispersion as a
curse, when that dispersion was known to result from the priesthood, for by doing this he would pronounce the priesthood a
curse likewise.  The force of this argument Tuch endeavours
to evade by remarking that " we find ourselves in the midst of
circumstances, in which the national sanctuary united the people
with but a slender* bond, when the Levites wandered almost
houseless through the land, and acted as priests for any one who
would pay them (Judg. xvii. 7-12, xviii. 4, 19 seq. cf. ver. 30),
and when the descendants of Aaron drew upon themselves the contempt and indignation of the people by their behavour at the tabernacle (1 Sam. ii. 12-17)." But how unhistorical it is to take the
case of a single vagrant belonging to the tribe of Levi (for all the
passages quoted from the book of Judges refer to the sanle individual) and to infer from this that the whole tribe consisted of
such vagrants; and how unwarrantable to take the example of a
single pair of boys belonging to the priestly family, who were
spoiled by their father, and who drew upon themselves the indignation of the people on account of their crimes and acts of
violence, and to conclude from this, that the whole tribe to
which they belonged, was equally corrupt, and therefore equally
despised. The priestly tribe may possibly have lost their rank,
their influence, their incomes, etc., during the confusion which
prevailed in the period of the Judges, partly on account of the
circumstances of the times, and partly by their own fault. But
in any case, they had not clone so to anything like the extent
which Tuch supposes. And a theocratic man, so truly religious
and thoroughly patriotic, as the author of this song undoubtedly
was, could not possibly at this, or any other time, have regarded
it as an unmitigated curse to belong to the priesthood of Israel.
In fact, the history of that vagrant Levite in the book of Judges
shows how highly even this worthless man was esteemed on
account of his connexion with the priestly tribe. Micah kept
him "as one of his sons" (Judg. xvii. 11), and the Danites, who
were wandering northwards, considered it so great an advantage
to have him with them, that, when he refused to go of his own




accord, they employed force rather than go without him.  ia'
therefore these two things are firmly established, (1) That Levi
was not a priestly tribe when the sentence on Levi was written,
and (2) That the priesthood was conferred upon the tribe as early
as the time of lMoses, the prae-Mosaic origin of the blessing is
certain, and in that case we have approached so nearly to the
date assigned it in the present passage, that no one who admits
these two premises will hesitate to adopt the conclusion that it
really belongs to Jacob, by whom it is expressly said to have
been composed.
It is equally impossible to point out any other period between
Joshua and David in which this blessing can have been composed; and within those limits the assumption of a vaticinium
post eventum must necessarily be confined. For, whether we
assume with Ttch (in order that the blessing on Levi may
appear fulfilled, in however partial or distorted a form), that it
was written in the time of Samuel, or with Ewald (on account
of the blessing on Dan), that it belongs to that of Samson, the
blessing on Judah, which was certainly written at the same time,
is perfectly irreconcileable with either hypothesis.  For how
does the glory, which the author heaps in such splendid colours
and high-flown expressions upon Judah's head, correspond to the
miserable, cowardly, and senseless conduct of the tribe of Judah
in the time of Samson (Judges xv. 9 sqq.), or to the thorough
insignificance of that tribe in the life-time of Samuel?  During
the whole of Samuel's career, and even up to the time of David's
independent appearance, this tribe is scarcely ever incidentally
referred to (1 Sam. xi. 8, xv. 4).  And even in the passage in
which it appears, its comparative insignificance is very apparent.
In the war against the Ammonites, described in 1 Sam. xi., out
of 300,000 Israelites only 30,000 belonged to Judah; and in the
army which Saul led against the Amalekites, out of 200,000
infantry only 10,000 were of the tribe of Judah (1 Sam. xv. 4).
How do the boasted princely rank of Judah, and the imperishable supremacy and rule, attributed to him in this blessing,
square with the fact that it was not till the time of David, aned
only by his instrumentality, that this princely rank was attained?
Are we to suppose that the mere outward precedence in the
camp and in the order of march through the desert can rlecllr
Ialve been re,Tarled lby thle a.ithlior es fiully amswei;ig (to tlle




JACOB'S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.     (F1.
ulSUpremacy which he so highly extols, and exhaustive of the
description in all its fulness?  But apart from the sentence
pronounced on Judah, and looking more at the blessing as a
whole, is it conceivable that a discourse, which is so full of exultation at the prosperous condition of the tribes, which cannot
find words or figures adequate to give expression to the abundance of blessings and power, to the conquest and peace secured
by almost every tribe, can possibly have been written in the
latter half of the period of the Judges, and composed with the
intention of describing both the circumstances existing at the
time and those belonging to the immediate past? No truly, the
torn, and mournful, and down-trodden period of the Judges, of
which our opponents generally draw a darker picture than we
can admit to be correct,-that period, in which Israel was again
and again oppressed and enslaved by the Gentiles, whilst reproach after reproach was heaped upon the people of God on
account of their frequent apostasy, cannot possibly have been
the time at which so exalted a description of the condition of
Israel as our blessing contains was written down in the form of
a prophecy, supposed to have been fulfilled in the age in which
it was composed.
Perhaps, however, all that is necessary to avoid these insuperable difficulties is to fix a somewhat later date for the cornposition, the time of David or Solomon, for example, as is done by
Heienrichs.  The blessing on Judah would then remain in full
force, and all its gorgeous pictures be realised in David's splendid
victories and the pomp or magnificence of Solomon's peaceful
reign. But incidit in Scyllam, qui vzult vitare Charybdin.  As
the blessing on Judah overthrew the former hypothesis, so now
does the sentence on Levi rise up with fatal testimony.. For
from the time of David the priestly tribe was in possession of
the highest rank and the greatest favour, and therefore with
this assumption there vanishes the opportunity, so warmly contended for, and firmly defended, of bringing the curse pronounced
on Levi into apparent harmony with the pretended date of composition.
If, then, the tone of exultation pervading the whole blessing,
and the blessing pronounced on Judah especially, preclude us
from tracing the origin of the song to the period of the Judges,
Vwhlilst on the other hand the sentence on Levi hinders us from




62                       JACOB.
assigning it to the times of David and Solomon, and if it is only
within these limits that it can be supposed to have arisen as a
vaticinium post eventumrn, then such a supposition falls at once
to the ground as inadmissible and worthless, and we are brought
back to the conclusion that the blessing owes its origin to the
prae-Mosaic age, and that there is nothing to hinder any one
from admitting its authenticity and its claim to the character of
a genuine prophecy, except the rationalistic pclacet: " there are
no real prophecies at all."
Other objections to the authenticity of the blessing, such as
that "so sublime, imaginative, and lively a style of poetry could
not be expected from an old man at the point of death," or that
" it is impossible to conceive how such a blessing pronounced by
Jacob can have been handed down word for word to the time of
the author or compiler of the Pentateuch," with more of the
same description, no longer merit any notice, and Henystenberg,
in our opinion, has paid them too much honour by his reply.
Hdvernickl has founded an argument in favour of its prae-Mosaic
origin upon the peculiar character of the poetry itself (Introd.
to Pentateuch, p. 228. Clark's For. Theol. Lib.).
REPLY TO HENGSTENBERG'S OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING
REMARKS.
Since the above was written, the passage before us has been
most elaborately expounded by Hengstenberg in the second edition of his Christology (i. 47-90 translation), and as my mode
of treating the subject is keenly criticized and warmly opposed,
I am induced to add the following supplementary remarks.
Hengstenberg's work has made me more than ever convinced of
the correctness of my views, and the fallacy of those advocated
by him; and his retractions, so far from improving his theory,
have rather tended to deteriorate it. But the author has written
in so confident a tone, made his assertions with such unbending determination, and heaped up such an overwhelming abundance of supposed proofs, that any reader who does not examine
his arguments with the most critical care, is likely to be dazzled




JACOB S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.     63
and carried away by them. I will begin with the objections
brought against me by Hengstenberg from the most general
points of view.
(1). P. 6C9. " The most superficial objections have been considered sufficient by HEofmnann, Kuirtz, and others, to induce
them to disregard the consensus of the whole Christian Church.
We cannot, indeed, but be astonished at this."  I leave the
reader to judge whether my reasons are superficial or not. I do
not think them superficial. But I am more concerned about the
charge that I have set at nought the common consent of the
whole Christian Church. I attach as much importance to the
assurance that I am supported by the common consent of the
whole Christian Church, even in matters of exegesis, as my
honoured opponent, perhaps rather more, and I believe that my
writings will bear comparison in this respect with those of
Hengstenberg.  Take, for example, his subtle and trifling remarks on the signs and wonders in Egypt, especially on the last
plague. In this and many other instances, on grounds to which
I will not apply the appropriate epithet, he has disregarded not
only the consensus of the whole Christian Church, but that of
all sound grammatical and historical interpretation, at which I
was not the only one or the first to feel astonishment. No one
indeed will deny, and least of all Hengstenberg himself, that
even a christian-minded commentator may and must deviate in
many cases from the traditional exegesis. The consensus of the
whole Christian Church has understood Ps. xxii. 16 to refer to a
piercing of the hands and the feet; but Hengstenberg in his later
writings has disregarded this consensus. Many persons, who
have thus felt themselves deprived of one of the most cherished,
most important, and most convincing predictions of the sufferings
of Christ, have probably been as much surprised at this, as
Hengstenberg himself at my interpretation of Gen xlix. 10.
And yet he is undoubtedly in the right.
But let us look more closely at the common consent of the
Christian Church in reference to Gen xiix. 10. It is true, the
early Christian Church without exception referred this passage
to a personal Messiah, and so did the ancient synagogue, but on
the ground of a decidedly false rendering of the word in question,
and one which Hengstenberg is no less confident in pronouncing




6(4                        JACOB.
false than I am, viz., the rendering given by the Septuayint and
Fulgate. It is absurd for a man to boast of the consensus of
the Church, when he has pronounced the basis on which it rests
erroneous, in other words has declared the consensus itself to be
without foundation.
(2). Hengstenberg constantly speaks of my views as non-Messianic, reckons me without reserve as one of the opponents of the
Miessianic interpretation, and therefore places me in the same
category with the rationalistic commentators Tuch, Gesenius,
and Knobel.  This is very unjust.  I have opposed the opinion
that the passage refers to a personal Messiah, but I have expressly and most firmly defended its Messianic character and
importance.  Hengstenberg himself is of opinion that the prophecies concerning the seed of the woman (Gen. iii. 15) and the
see(l of Abraham (Gen. xii. 3) do not refer to a personal individual Messiah, and yet he calls them Messianic!
(3). At p. 71 Hengstenberg says, " a suspicion with reference
to the non-Messianic (he means the non-personal) interpretations is naturally suggested by their variety and multiplicity,
as well as by the fact that the opponents of the Messianic explanation never agree among themselves, but that on the contrary
one of their interpretations is invariably overthrown by another.
Such is, in every case, a sure indication of error."  This is excellent.   Henystenberg himself has already disposed of two
Messianic interpretations; Sack propounds a third, and others
have been given by different commentators. If the variety be
" in every case " a sure indication of error, it must be so here.
On which side again has there been the greatest diversity, or the
most frequent change of opinion? The non-personal interpretations are three in number, (1) till rest comes, (2) till he (or
one) comes to rest or to the place of rest, (3) till he (or one) comes
to Shiloh.  Of the personal interpretations there are four.  (1),
eow ar Xe)     Ta a7roKcet/LeVa avT)' or e&DS av extii  o ca7r-oeELraL; (2),
Donec veniat qui mittendus est; (3), Donec veniat filius ejus;
(4), Till the hero (alias: rest, i.e., the bringer of rest, alias: the
man of rest) conmes. It is to be observed here, however, that the
division of the expositors into two classes, those who refer the
passage to a personal Messiah and the non-Messianic, is a very
wrong one, even from an exegetical point of view. The principal exegetical difference relates to the question whether Sh/ilol




JACOB S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.        65
is the subject or the object.  And here there are five different
explanations on HIenystenbery's side, and only two on ours (and
these two, as we shall presently show, are, exegetically considered, one and the same).  Thus Hengstenbery has pronounced
sentence on his own interpretation.  Nevertheless ice are magnanimous enough to cancel it for the present as undeserved.
(4). P. 71. " It is possible in every case to trace out some
-interest, caart from the merits of the question, which. has led to
the objections against the Messianic interpretation.
Iofmann and his followers do not in the least conceal the fact
that they are guided by the principle of a concatenation of prophecy with history."-How far the latter is correct, at least in
my case, we will enquire by and by.  For the present I shall
simply say, that it is untrue that I have any interest apart fromn
the merits of the question.
(5). At p. 67, Hengstenberg says: " The entire relation of
the Pentateuch to the sacred literature of later times, and the
circumstance that the former constituted the foundation of the
latter, and contained, in the germ, all that was afterwards more
fully developed, entitle us to expect to find some expression of
the Messianic idea in the books of MIoses.  The more prominent
the place occupied in the later books by the announcement of a
personal Messiah, the more difficult will it be to one who has
acquired correct fiundamental views regarding the Pentateuch, to
conceive that this announcement should be wanting in it-especially the announcement of the Messiah in his kingly office.
But there cannot be any doubt, that the promise of
a personal Messiah in his kingly office, if it be found in the Old
Testament at all, must exist in the passage which we are now
considering."  That is to say, the Pentateuch prepares the ground
in every direction, therefore the Messianic idea smust have taken
root in it, and everything that we find subsequently expanded,
must have existed here in the germ.  Who is there that will
dispute this, if he believe in the history of the plan of salvation
at all? But imperceptibly the Messianic idea is exchanged for
"the announcement of the Messiah in his kingly office," the
germ, that is, for the full grown tree.  We, too, are of opinion
that the foundation of the Messianic idea mnust be laid in the
Pentateuch, but we do not consider that we are justified in maintaining a priori that it must have existed in the Pentateuch in
VOL. II.                                   E




G66                      JACOB.
this or that expanded form.  Hengstenberg decides that, since
the Messianic idea appears in subsequent books as an announcement of a personal kingly Messiah, it must be found in the Pentateuch, not merely in the germn, but in its fully developed form.
But what are we to say, then, of the announcement of a suffering
Messiah, which also appears in the later books?  According to
Hengstenberg's Hfermeneu tics, this also must be found in the Pentateuch.  Let him point us, then, to such a prophecy in the books
of Moses.  No doubt the antecedents are already there, the soil
is prepared in which this idea shall strike its roots, namely in
the institution of sacrifice, but the application of the idea of
sacrifice, and its expansion into the concrete announcement of a
personal suffering Messiah belong to a later age.
WVe do maintain, however (not a _priori as Hengstenberg does,
but a posteriori), that the idea of a personal Messiah is to be
found in the Pentateuch.  But in spite of Hengstenberg's decision
that it exists in Gen. xlix. 10, and nowhere else, we take the
liberty of looking for it, not there but in Num. xxiv. 17 (see
vol. iii., ~ 57. 1), and Deut. xviii. 18 (see vol. iii., ~ 60. 3).
(6.) In commenting upon the remark made by me, to the
effect that the historical conditions and preparations requisite to
the development of the Messianic idea did not exist in the time
of Jacob, but that they are to be found first of all in the time of
Moses, and afterwards in a more perfect form in that of David,
Hengstenberg writes with the greatest indignation (p. 70): " Do
you mean to teach God wisdom? we might ask, in answer to such
argumentation. To chain prophecy to history, in such a manner
as this, is in reality nothing short of destroying it.  How much
soever people may choose to varnish it, this is but another form
of naturalism, against the influence of which no one is secure;
for it is in the atmosphere of our day. Men who occupy so narrowminded and trifling a ground of argument as this, who would
rather shape history, than heartily surrender themselves to it,
and find out, meditate upon, and follow the footsteps of God in
it, will be compelled to erase the promise in Gen. xii. 3:'In
thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed,' yea, even the
words,' I will make of thee a great nation,' with which the promise begins-for that also violates the natural order."
I admire the zeal which is apparent in these words, for it is
zeal in a holy cause, though it arises from prejudice, misunder



JACOB'S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.      67
standing, and error. But before I proceed to prove this, I will point
out to what extent there are errors in my own line of argument.
First, I have clone wrong in putting the Historical proofs of my
opinion before the exegetical, for by so doing I have undoubtedly
made it appear that I regarded the former as the more important, though I guarded against such a mistake by the most
explicit declarations. Exegesis ought to do its work, free and
unconstrained, without the fetters either of tradition or of its
own system; the results of the exegesis should then be linked
on to the system, and the latter should be shaped, completed,
or rectified according to the former. In the present instance,
the results of exegesis, at which I have arrived with the greatest
care and conscientiousness, are completely in harmony with the
historical data and the expectations founded upon them. Hence
my error was merely one of form.  I have only to put the exegetical enquiry before the historical, and everything will be in
order. Then again, I have to confess that my historical researches have perhaps been conducted in a more confident tone,
than human speculations in general ought to assume, and
that this may appear to have been peculiarly unjustifiable in the
present case, as no exegetical foundation had yet been laid.
But even this is a mere error of form, and I have only to alter
the expressions, not the matter.
Let us look, however, at the charge of naturalism.  Even if
I looked upon the history of Israel as purely natural, a purely
human development, a concatenation of history and prophecy,
regarding these as props and conditions, the one of the other, I
ought not to be regarded as the precursor of naturalism. Would
it, for example, be naturalism, if I were to maintain that the
point of time at which God became incarnate in Christ was
affected by the natural development of heathenism, that God
performed this, the greatest miracle in the history of the world,
just at the time when all the conditions requisite for the cheerful acceptance of salvation on the part of the heathen, and all
that could promote the diffusion of the gospel through the
earth, were to be found in the political and social state of the
Gentile world?
But I can see in the history of Israel, in which, with whichl,
and about which prophecy is occupied, not merely a natural,
hulman development, but on the contrary a product of nature
E2




68                      JACOB.
and grace, of human freedom and the sovereigntyof God. If,then,
I look at divine prophecy in its relation to the history of Israel,
that is, to a history which was the result of the most special
guidance and constant active interference on the part of God,
how can this be condemned as a naturalistic degradation of
prophecy?  Do not the traces of God's mercy and wisdom in
the history of salvation come first and most clearly to light, do
they not appear in their most wonderful and attractive form,
when we see how divine prophecy was introduced as a living and
organic part of history, and on the other hand how the course of
history was so directed by God, and his operations therein were
of such a kind, as to be constantly opening the way and preparing
a place for new and more glorious forms of prophecy?  I fall in
the dust and worship when I thus discover how the living God
was ever moving in history and prophecy, how the mercy and
wisdom of God, through his adorable condescension, adapted
themselves in both of these to existing wants and circumstances.
Is this naturalism?  Is this shaping history and destroying
prophecy?  To my mind, prophecy first acquires its full value,
when I can see what God has done in history to prepare a fitting
place for prophecy.  The incarnation of God in the fulness of
time loses nothing of its adorable worth, but rather gains the
more, from the fact that it required a historical preparation of
4000 years.
For my own part I am conscious of having "' heartily surrendered myself to history," and of having "meditated upon and
followed the footsteps of God therein."  I have doubtless done
so in great weakness and with much liability to error, and shall
therefore be always delighted to learn not merely of Hofmnann,
but of Hengstenberg also. There may be many an error in the
work I have written; but no one can charge me with want of
hearty devotion or thoughtful research. Again, there is as much
injustice as bitterness in the accusation brought against me, of
giving way to the desire to teach God wisdom.  Might I not,
with equal justice, or rather injustice, bring the same charge
against Ilenystenberg, for saying at p. 67, that God must have
caused the announcement of a personal Messiah and of his
kingly character to be made in the Pentateuch, or for similar
remarks which might be found in a hundred other passages of
his writings?  But what shall I say, when Hengstenberg is so




J-ACOB S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.      69
carried away by his zeal as to maintain that, with the views
which I hold on the relation between history and prophecy, I
shall be compelled to erase the promise in Gen. xii. 3, " In thee
shall all the families of the earth be blessed," as well as the prediction, " I will make of thee a great nation," since they also
violate the natural order?  Such arguments as these bear upon
the face of them convincing proof that the writer either could
not, or would not, understand his opponent.
The charge of naturalism, of destroying prophecy, &c., would
only be justifiable, if I looked upon prophecy as Eiwald does,
as a natural product of the human mind, and supposed it to
be attributable to an elevated and enlightened spirit, skilled
in anticipating the future, as the result of the study of the
history of the past.  But Ifengstenbeqcg  knows, or ought to
know, that these are not my views.  Prophecy, in my opinion,
is an objective communication of divine knowledge to man, but
one that is vitally associated with the circumstances of the age
in which it is made, which supplies its wants and enters as an
organic element into the general course of affairs.  The dependence of prophecy upon history, as I understand it, is no other
than this, that God does not scatter the seeds of prophecy, until
by his guidance of history, he has brought the soil to such a
state, that as soon as those seeds are scattered, they will strike
their roots and bring forth fruit.  The seeds of prophecy do not
resemble the grains of wheat, which the Egyptians placed in the
hands of their mummies, to lie there perhaps for thousands of
years, before they fell into a genial soil, where they could unfold
the blessing that was in them.  They bear a far greater resemblance to the sowing of the husbandman, who scatters every
kind of seed at the proper season, and either seeks a fitting soil,
or snakes it so by cultivation.
Hen9gstenberg has left the field of scientific discussion, and
made a very cutting appeal to my conscience. I am far from
denying that any one has a right to do this. But before bringing against another charges so sweeping as those of naturalism, of
shaping history, destroying prophecy, and sacrilegiously wishing
to teach God wisdom, charges which, as Henystenberg might
well have known, would go to my heart like a two-edged
sword, it is a duty to weigh the terms employed with greater
care than Henqystenberg? in his excessive zeal, appears to have




7(0}                       JACOB.
exercised.  I desire no mercy, even from Henygstenbery, but I
desire justice and truth, and these I do not meet with. Nor can
I avoid acknowledging that I look upon Hengstenbery as having
even less right than others to speak upon such subjects in a way
like this, for, were he measured by his own standard, he would
hardly escape the same, or rather, I believe, far greater condemnation.  I shall not call it naturalism  that we find him so
often depriving miracles of their miraculous character, nor shall
I say that he is a destroyer of prophecy, though so frequently he
dissipates the concrete substance of a prophecy into shadowy
ideas. I will not speak of him as shaping history, when he explains away everything in it that displeases him, nor will I charge
him with wishing to be wiser than God, when he so completely
sets at nought all the laws of exegesis, in his interpretation of
the miracles wrought by God for Israel, as to bring out exactly
what he would have done if he had been in the place of God.'
As I have said I neither will nor can bring such severe and
unjust charges against him; but I say with confidence and without reserve, that if Hengstenberg were measured by the same
standard by which he has measured me, there are none of these
charges which he would be able to rebut or evade.
(7). Hengstenbery had formerly translated the passage under
review: " till rest, i.e. the bringer of rest, shall come," and had
endeavoured to prove from such examples as r'ln, 111"n, 1V1;
that;nl?   miglht be an abstract noun.  But it is very clear that
this explanation is not a true one, even apart from the context,
the structure, and the parallelism of the verse.  It might indeed
be possible to defend the use of an abstract for a concrete noun;
but as;qL)  does not mean to bring rest, but to enjoy rest,
pi)~~ (Shiloh) cannot indicate one who brings rest, but one who
enjoys it, and this is a predicate which can hardly be applied to
the Messiah, who came not to enjoy rest himself, but to impart
it to others (Gen. xii. 3).  Hengstenberg has, therefore, done
right in dropping this explanation, but he has done wrong in
substituting for it one which is even weaker and more untenable.
He now interprets Shiloh as a personal appellative, or (what he
appears to regard as the same thing) a proper name, and translates it man of rest.  He has been led to make this modification,
1 See my treatise on Jephthah's Sacrifice in the luther. Zeitschrift, 185.3.




JACOB'S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON 1IS SONS.        71
partly by the discovery that such forms as,-'.' = -i- 5    cannot
possibly be abstract nouns, and partly by the fact that in every
other passage, Shiloh is the prolper name of the town in which
the tabernacle was first set up after the conquest of the Holy
Land.  "An interpretation," he says at p. 74, " which dissevers
the connexion betwixt Shiloh and Shiloh, betwixt Shiloh and
Solomon, betwixt Shiloh and the Prince of Peace, betwixt Shiloh
and him " whose right it is," must for that very reason be
self-condemned."  But this town of Shiloh is just the Achilles'
heel in Hengstenberg's explanation of the passage as referring to
a personal Messiah, and, to say the least, it is not a prudent
thing to run, with the heel exposed, upon the adversary's sword.
If once we decide that the passage alludes to the town of Shiloh,
then all reference to a personal Messiah is hopelessly gone; for
we shall have no other resource open to us than to say that the
word Shiloh is the object of the passage, indicating the point at
which thev were to arrive.  But how unsuitable does the con:jecture, expressed by Baumgarten and myself, that the town of
Shiloh owes its name to this prophecy, appear in Hengstenberg's
mouth! For such a thought is just as much at variance with
his interpretation, as it is in harmony with ours.  Shiloh, he
says, is a proper name, the name of the Messiah, and its appellative signification is mnan of rest.  Then, Joshua named the
town where he first erected the tabernacle " man of rest," because
Jacob had called the personal Messiah the man of rest! What
an absurd idea 1 For what had the town of Shiloh to do with
the personal Messiah, the future king of Israel?  What a ridiculous name for a town: man of rest! Can we conceive of the
Jews returning from the Babylonian captivity and calling Jerusalem  " Messiah," in commemoration of the rebuilding of the
temple?!! If not, it is just as inconceivable that Joshua should
have given the name of Shiloh to the town where he erected the
tabernacle, if Shiloh was then an appellative noun, or, as Hengstenberg says, a proper name of the personal Messiah.
Hengstenberg's new interpretation has thus left all the weak
points of his former explanation unaltered (we shall discuss them
presently), and has merely added fresh impossibilities. He has
ev;en retained the weak point already referred to, viz. the deriva.tion of,;-t  from    wtL, which means salvus, securus fuit,
maxime de eo qui _prospera fortunea secure ue''ri, (Gesenius




72                        JACOB.
thes.), and the inference that Shiloh can only mean a mnan of
rest, in the sense of one who enjoys rest, not of a man who brings
rest and peace.
(8). The first and most essential question to be asked in connexion with the interpretation of this passage, the question, in
fact, upon which everything else depends, is not whether the
passage speaks of a personal Messiah or no, but whether;t-Iv.
is to be translated as the subject (" till Shiloh come"), or as an
object (" till he come to Shiloh").  To the latter rendering,
which I gave in my first edition in the abstract form  (" till he
comes to rest"), but in the present edition in the concrete shape
(" till he arrives at the place of rest," i.e. at the place where rest
shall be made apparent), Henystenberg offers the following
objections: (1) Shiloh, from  its very form, cannot be an abstract or appellative noun, but must necessarily be either a concrete adjective or a proper name, and (2) if Shiloh were either
of the two former, the object, to which they were to come, would
necessarily have been introduced with a preposition.
1 do not consider the comparison of;~~t with rn44v,  -n -r,
Vjnp, ~rn~  absolutely inadmissible, although Hlengstenberg
has adopted Tumch's arguments against such a comparison.  Nor
can I adopt the opinion of Delitzsch, that where there are
already so many synonymes for the one word rest ('ik,,' nn.,'?~'r,,;'l), it would be impossible that the form;'[OW should
have the same meaning. Does the fact that there are four words
in a language with the same meaning, rest, establish the impossibility of our meeting with a fifth?  Still I see no objection on
the other hand to the derivation of Shiloh from an original form
ti;,2', which is advocated by Hengstenberg and Tuch.  The
existence of such a form is rendered very probable by the nomen
gentile,2'[?b,, which we meet with in 1 Kings xi. 29, xii. 15.
But so much may be admitted without our being, therefore, unable to interpret ~tbL  as an abstract noun.  Ewzald, at least,
informs us, that adjectives and abstract nouns are formed by the
terminations an and on (Lehrbuch ~ 163 b.).  The adjective
signification he regards as the primary one, and states that at
present there is no distinction in the terminations, but that it is
certain that an was originally the form of the adjective, on that
of the abstract noun.




JACOB S PROPRETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.      73
We have already pointed out an instance, in which Flengstenbery has condemned himself whilst attempting to rectify his
opinion. We have another proof of this in the case before us;
but here also we must reverse the sentence as an unjust one. In
the excess of his zeal, for example, in attempting to overthrow
our explanation, he has adopted Tuch's assertion, that " it is
quite impossible to give the word the signification of an appellative noun, since it is only in proper names, where the signification of the derivative suffix is of the less consequence, that
on is shortened into oh."  This reasoning suits Tuch's interpretation very well, for in his opinion Shiloh is the name of
the well-known town, in this and every other passage of the Old
Testament, in which it occurs. But instead of sustaining Hengstenberg's view, that Shiloh means a man of rest in the passage
before us, it is directly opposed to it. Is Shiloh, then, simply a
proper name in this connexion?  Is the word Mlessiah a proper
name?  Are such terms as the king, the ruler, the conqueror,
&c., proper names?  Undoubtedly these and other similar words
may all become proper names, but they only become so when they
are associated with particular individuals.  Victor is primarily
an appellative noun, but it becomes a proper name by becoming
the name of a person; Shiloh is an appellative noun, but it becomes a proper noun by being used as the name of a town; so
with the name Solomon, &c.  If Jacob, then, predicted the
coming of a man of rest, did he mean that " man of rest" was
to be his name?  Certainly not; he surely meant that he would
be a man of rest, and did not intend to say whether that would
be his name or not. If he had, he would have predicted something, which was not fulfilled, for in Luke ii. 21, we do not read
that " when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising
of the child, his name was called Shiloh."  It is evident therefore that if the word Shiloh in Gen. xlix. 10 refers to a person
at all, it must be an appellative noun descriptive of that person,
and not his proper name.  The identification of an adjective
and a proper name is a self-delusion, which in our case, at least,
has not succeeded in imposing upon others also.
With regard to the assertion itself, it is certainly true that
only one exception can be found to the rule, that the abbreviation of the ending on into oh took place in none but proper
names.  But the fact that there is at least one exception ('nlg.




74                       JACOB.
= death, hell, in Prov. xxvii. 20), is a proof that the rule is not
an absolute one. And Ewald has shown that there are other
analogous instances of the softening down of the final consonant n: e.g. ~..~ (Hos. ii. 14) for p-,N and: (Job xli.
18) for Shirjdn (1 Kings xxii. 34) and Shijodn (1 Sam. xvii.
38); vid. Lehrbuch ~ 163 seq.
What, then, is the meaning of Shiloh?  Two things are certain, that Shiloh is derived from the root  %t~, and that Shiloh
was the name of a town.  Either of these is sufficient to establish the appellative signification of the word, from which undoubtedly the name of the town originally sprang. And from
these two data, even apart from the laws which regulated the
formation of the language, we may argue conclusively that the
original notion expressed by the word is either rest in the abstract, or, what I decidedly prefer, the place of rest, i.e., the
place in which one rests, or where rest is first enjoyed. But we
must defer the consideration of the question, whether, in the
passage before us, Shiloh is the proper name of the well-known
town, or still retains the appellative signification which was kept
in view when the town was named.
(9). It is not necessary to offer proofs that the verb N.J
is often followed by an accusative without a preposition, to
indicate the object arrived at.  We find it in various connexions, both with proper and appellative nouns, e.g., to come
to Shiloh, to come to Jerusalem, to come to the town, to come
to the gate, to arrive at wisdom  (Prov. ii. 19), to come to the
sabbath (2 Kings xi. 9,  e:w  NSir i.e., for the purpose of performing the priestly duties of that day), to come to the feast
(Lam. i. 4 bTVy: n5Z).  But the arguments of our opponents
assume that the objects can only stand without a preposition
when it is a, concrete, not when it is an abstract noun. And if
the two expressions, " to come to the sabbath," and " to come to
the feast," are not allowed to be cases in point, I must candidly
confess that I know of no other instance in which NlI is connected with an abstract noun without a preposition, and that in
every other case we find it with places or persons.  Still even if
we must admit, that the ordinary rules of the language required
a preposition with abstract nouns, this would not prove that




JACOB S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.      75
poetry may not have emancipated itself from this law, seeing that
it always adopts so very different, and so much bolder a style.
However I do not require this admission. I have already
stated that I also regard the word Shiloh not as an abstract, but
as a concrete noun, with the meaning place of rest. But I have
not yet been able to determine, whether it is to be taken as an
appellative or a proper noun.  Should further investigation establish the former, I have no doubt that it will be just as possible
to do without the preposition in the phrase, " to come to the
place of rest" as in the other phrases " to come to the town
(Jer. xxii. 24), or " to the gate" (Gen. xxiii. 10, 18; Ps. c. 4).
(10). There is nothing in the rules of the language, therefore,
to prevent our rendering the passage;,-tJ [q^-.3  p: "till
he come to the place of rest (town of rest)."  Shilol nmay be the
object, and there is nothing to prove that it must be the subject.  This we have already demonstrated, and therefore all
that we have to do here is to adduce still further evidence, and
to answer Ilengstenbery's objections.  I said above that the
parallelism of the verse leads us to consider Shiloh as the object.
I have probably laid too much stress upon this argument, but I
must still maintain so much at least, that in myviewthe parallelism
is unmistakeably clear; and Bengstenbery admits that the parallelism is " somewhat concealed" by his interpretation, inasmuch
as, instead of (?): " till the bringer of peace comes, and he, to
whom belongs the obedience of the nations"-we have in the
second member, " and to him belongs the obedience of the
nations."
The context and the train of thought in the blessing on Judah
speak much more decidedly and, as I think, with absolute proof'
in favour of my interpretation, and in opposition to Hengstenberg's. The following reasons may be assigned: (1), We should
expect the word " until," to introduce some information as to the
course of Judah, and what would be the result of his uninterrupted possession of the post of leader? (2), What could induce
the patriarch, when describing the blessings that awaited Judah,
to look so far away from Judah himself, as to place the climax
of the blessing in the announcement of a person, who is not said
to have been connected with Judah in any way whatever? For
it is nowhere stated that the person, supposed to be indicated by
Shiloh, will be the descendant of Judah, nor is this by any means




7G                        JACOB,
necessarily implied.  (3), But even granting that the supposed
person, Shiloh, can or rather must be regarded as descending
from Jucdah, and that the word Shiloh describes the person of
the Messiah according to his kingly office and his peace-bringing
rule, then Jacob will have prophesied that Judah should rule
until the ruler sprang from Judah, i.e., that Judah should rule
till Judah ruled.  There is no sense in this.  (4), If the word
Shiloh really denoted the Messiah, i.e., a particular, well-defined
personality, there would be every reason to expect that the
article would be prefixed, and that thus the expression would be
somewhat less general.  (5), The first half of the tenth verse
speaks only of Judah, and according to Hengstenberg another
subject, viz., Shiloh, is introduced into the second half.  Be it
so; but what are we to make of the next verse (11) which commences, " he binds his colt to the vine," &c., " he washes his
garments in milk," &c.?  Who is the l7e in this case?  Judah
or Shiloh?  According to the laws of exegesis tIengstenberg
ought to reply, Shiloh. But how does the description given in
ver. 11 apply to the Messiah?   This verse is most clearly
descriptive of Judah's inheritance in the Holy Land, a province
rich in wine and milk.   Hence Henystenbery says without
the least reserve (p. 74): " Vhat is here assigned to Judah,
belongs to him only as a part of the whole, as a fellow-heir of
the country flowing with milk and honey." The subject is
Judah, then, not Shiloh?  But what is to be done with the
"h e" in ver. 11, which can only refer to Shiloh?  (6), The
train of thought in the whole of Jacob's address to Judah (ver.
8-12) requires that we should render Shiloh as an object, and
precludes our taking it as the subject of this sentence.  How
beautifully and smoothly does thought link itself to thought with
our interpretation! What life there is in the whole section; and
how natural is every part!  Judah, the praised one, is the conqueror of his enemies, the champion of his brethren.  By his
victorious, lion-like power, and his inalienable supremacy, Judah
passes on from conflict to victory, from war to peace, and the
nations gladly obey the conqueror.  This peaceful and happy
condition is still farther pictured in vers. 11, 12, by a description of the abundant blessings to be enjoyed in the land, into
which Judah enters as the leader of the rest.  What man is
there, with any feeling for the proper order and consecutiveness
2




JACOB'S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.     77
of thought, who will not grant, that with this interpretation the
connexion and the train of thought are as natural, and free from
violence, as they are intelligible and easy?  And what does
tHenygsenbery say?  " We further remark, that verses 11 and
12, which ancient and modern commentators (e.g., Kurtz) have
attempted to bring into artificial connexion with ver. 10, simply
finish the picture of Judah's happiness by a description of the
luxurious fulness of his rich territory" (p. 74). Indeed! Then
the connexion, which I have pointed out, is arttficica, and it is sufficient that Henyfstenbery says so without waiting to prove it.
But when we ask what natural, simple, and unforced connexion he
suggests instead, we receive for answer, none. Now, undoubtedly,
a connexion which has no existence at all, cannot be called an
artificial connexion.  But if there is any place, in which an
expositor must necessarily find out the connexion between two
consecutive sentences, it is just here between ver. 10 and those
which follow. For as there is no subject nanled in ver. 11 seq.,
the subject must be sought in the verses immediately preceding,
and, therefore, there must be a connexion between the two, which
it is the duty of the expositor to point out.
This is the exegetical ground on which I have based mily view.
I will not maintain that all these arguments are absolute proofs:
on the contrary tile only ones to which I attribute such force as
this are Nos. 3, 5, and 6; though I do not regard the others as
unimportant. Yet all that Henygstenbery has to say in reply to the
whole of these multifarious arguments is found in the bare and
unsupported assertion, that I have attempted to bring ver. 11
into artificial connexion with ver. 10.
If, now, we further consider the fact, that Shiloh is the
name of a town, and that a town cannot possibly have been
named the " man of rest" or have been called by the -personal
name of the Messiah, I think I shall have adduced all the exegetical proof that can be required of the impossibility of Hengstenber-y's opinions, whether new or old.
The word Shiloh occurs forty-one times in the Old Testament as the name of a town. What then is more natural than
to suppose that in the forty-second passage, that is, the passage
before us, either this town is expressly designated, or there is
some essential connexion between the Shiloh mentioned here
and the name of the town?  Everything depends upon the ques



78                       JACOB.
tion, whether the town was in existence in Jacob's time, or rather,
whether it was then called Shiloh.  For if so, there would be no
doubt that Jacob's prophecy had reference to the town, and we
should have to adopt the rendering of Tuch, Delitzsch, Diestel,
and others: till he come to Shiloh.  But if not, then the name
of the town had some reference to Jacob's prophecy. Shiloh,
therefore, will in that case have been used by Jacob as an appellative noun, meaning the place of rest, and will subsequently
have become a proper name by being transferred to the town as
the "' town of rest."
I still give a decided preference to the latter explanation. All
that I have said in ofpposition to the former appears to me as
convincing as ever.  Moreover, I am now of opinion that I can
support my view, that the name of the town was changed with
direct reference to Gen. xlix. 10, by biblical data (for which I
am indebted to Hengstenberg himself, p. 81). In the first passage, in which the word Shiloh occurs as the name of the town,
viz., Josh. xvi. 6, we find it written Taanath-Shiloh, and shortly
afterwards it is mentioned in a connexion which points unmistakeably to Gen. xlix. 10. In Josh. xviii. 1, we read that " the
whole congregation assembled together at Shiloh, and set up the
tabernacle of the congregation there, and the land was subdued
before them."  With this we should compare Josh. xxi. 44:
" And the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all
that he sware unto their fathers; and there stood not a man of
all their enemies before them," &c., and Josh. xxii. 4: " And now
the Lord your God hath given rest unto your brethren, as he
promised them; therefore, now return ye, and get you unto
your tents," &c.  From these passages we perceive that Israel
regarded the erection of the tabernacle at Shiloh as a boundaryline in its history, marking the termination of its previous wanderings and homeless condition, and the commencement of its
quiet and peaceful possession of the land, which was promised
to the fathers.  And they had good reason for so doing, for the
permanent erection of the tabernacle, the setting up and taking
down of which had hitherto served as an invariable signal of
the encampment and the departure of the Israelites during the
journey through the desert, naturally served as a sign and guarantee of the termination of their wanderings and the attainment
of a settled rest.  What Jacob had foretold in his blessing to




JAkCOB'S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SON'S.   79
the fathers, was now fulfilled (at least in a preliminary form).
And whilst it was perfectly natural that the blessing of the
patriarch should be remembered on that occasion, the passages
referred to distinctly intimate that it was so remembered. When
the tabernacle was set up at Shiloh in the place of its rest, all
Israel had also arrived at its resting-place. If the town had
actually been called Shiloh before, it was not till now that it became fully and truly what its name indicated, a place of rest.
To judge from appearance, however, this was not its name previously, but it was so called for the first time on the occasion
referred to, in commemoration of the important manner in
which their previous history had been brought to a close. It is
true that the absence of any reference to a city of Shiloh in the
earlier history, is not a proof that no such town existed, or that
it bore some other name, but it gives a certain amount of probability to the assumption. More than this, the fact that, when
the town is first mentioned, we find another name, Taanah, by
the side of the name Shiloh, and that this name subsequently
vanished, confirms the conclusion, to which we were brought by
the other data mentioned above.  There is not the least improbability, therefore, in the opinion, which we have been led
to form, that the town was formerly called Taanah, but that it
received the name of Shiloh, after the erection of the tabernacle,
with especial reference to Jacob's prophecy.
Hengstenberg agrees with me in this, except that with the
greatest naivete, he adopts the most incredible notion, that the
town was named the man of rest or Messiah.  But in a note on
p. 81 (transl.), by the use of the word vielleicht (perhaps) he suggests the possibility that the name Taanath-Shiloh, in Josh. xvi.
6, " may not be a combination of the earlier and later names, but
the full form of the original name, of which the latter, Shiloh,
is only an abbreviation. From the well-ascertained and common
signification of the word;Lq,  we are entitled to translate
Taanath-Shiloh: the futurity, or the appearance of Shiloh.
Shiloh shall come: such was the watchword at that time.  The
word Taanah would then correspond to the Atlp of the fundamental passage."-Hengstenbery has certainly acted with great
prudence, in leaving a backdoor open, when setting up his impossible theory; only it is unfortunate that it should lead to a
-;~h  eat..  For (1) There is something very beautiful and




80                       JACOB.
edifying in the assurance that "'Shiloh will come,' was the
watchword of the time;" but unfortunately this assertion is a
mere piece of imagination, as there is not the slightest or most
remote trace of such a watchword in the whole of the book of
Joshua.  The actual watchword is given most clearly and unmistakeably in Josh. xviii. 1, xxi. 44, xxii. 4: " Jehovah has
given rest to Israel," and this watchword was incorporated in the
new name, that was given to the town. (2). It is just as fatal
an objection, that the " well-ascertained and common" signification of Add does not admit of the explanation: the future, or
the appearance of Shiloh.  mqn, in Jer. ii. 24, is generally
admitted to mean sexual connection, coitus. And even if' we
assume that this is merely a derivative meaning, and that the
primary meaning (the one applicable here), is a meeting, or combination, it will not be easy to extract from this the idea of the
" future, or appearance, of the Messiah."  The verb,ce is not
used in the Kal. In the Piel, Pual, and Hithpael it has the
meaning to light upon, to happen accidentally, and the notion
of that which is accidental always appears as essentially connected with the verb. The meaning of the Kal, from which
Taanah is derived, is given by both Gesenius (p. 123), and
Fiirst (Handworterbuch 112), as, " to be a suitable, convenient,
proper time; to meet or fit exactly." This does not in any way
suit the explanation " future of the Messiabh." If this be the
true meaning of the Kal, the proper interpretation of TaanathShiloh would be not " Shiloh's future," but " Shiloh's present."
The name could only be intended to say: what Shiloh signifies,
has now come to pass. And this would harmonise with my views
very well, but not with those of Henystenberg.
(11). "Up to the time of their arrival in Shiloh," says
Hengstenberg, p. 72, " Judah was never in possession of the
sceptre, or lawgiver; and this reason would alone be sufficient
to overthrow the opinion, which we are now combating" (viz.,
that advocated by Tuch, Delitzsch, &c.)  "We have already
proved that, by these terms, royal power and dominion are designated, and that, for this reason, the beginning of the fulfilment cannot be sought for in any period previous to the time of
David." This argument is equally applicable to the views I
entertain. I will not enter into a controversy with Henystenberg on account of his having translated p,.ph. lawgiver, though




JACOB'S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS BONS.     81
I regard this rendering as decidedly erroneous, and feel myself
compelled by Num. xxi. 1.8 (where the word is used in just the
same connexion and from the same point of view as in Gen.
xlix. 10), to render it the ruler's staff. But it is an assertion
altogether without foundation to say that Shebeth and M'chokek
can only refer to royal supremacy. The context in the case
before us shows, that they must both of them be interpreted as
referring to the lead taken by the tribe of Judah. Shebeth
occurs in Judg. v. 14, as the staff of the head of the tribe of
Zebulon, and Ml'choke7k in Nunm. xxi. 18, as the ruler's staff held
by the nobles of the nation. And in neither of these passages
can it denote really royal insignia.-Hengstenberg then continues (p. 72, 73): "But even if we were to come down to the
mere leadership of Judah, we could demonstrate that this did
not belong to him. His marching in front of the others cannot,
even in the remotest degree, be considered as a leadership. Moses,
who belonged to another tribe, had been solemnly called by God
to the chief command. Nor was Joshua of the tribe of Judah."
But in spite of all this, the fact, that when Jacob said, "the sceptre
shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from the place
between his feet," he merely thought of the lead to be taken by
the tribe, may be inferred (1), from the passage itself, for he
promises the sceptre and the staff to the tribe, and not to one
particular member of it; and (2), with still greater certainty
from the relation between the words addressed to Judah, and
those previously addressed to Reuben, Sirneon, and Levi.Reuben, the first-born, had forfeited the pre-eminence in might
and dignity, which properly belonged to him, on account of his
wickedness.  And for a similar reason, the pre-eminence in
might and dignity, which naturally belonged to the first-born,
could not be transferred to either Simeon or Levi.  The
patriarch's eye then fell upon Judah, and he at once exclaimed:
" It is thou my son, the children of thy father bend before thee."
Thus Judah was assured of the pre-eminence in dignity and
power, which had been taken away from Reuben. And what
was this pre-eminence in power and dignity, or the bending
of the other children before this one, but the leadership and
rule? But, replies Iengstenberg, in the journey through the
desert and during the conquest of the promised land, Judah was
not the leader. In making this remark, however, (1), He overlooks
VOL. II.                                   F




the fa ct, that the words of Jacob speak of the leadership of
one tribe among the rest.  Moses and Joshua were what they
were, not on account of their belongingy to this or that tribe, but
by virtaue of an extraordinary call on the part of Jehovah.
Judah was still the first ofl the tribes, notwithstanding that
neither M3oses nor Joshua belonged to that tribe.  "In every
numbering, of the people, Judah appears as the most important
and populous of' the tribes, and whenever the camp broke up,
Judah led the way.  When the land was divided, it was Judah.
again which received its inheritance in Gilgal before any other
tribe."  (_Detlizsch.)  (Comptare also Hengstcenberg's remarks at
p. 76 seq.).  Idoreover, the blessing pronounced upon Judclah by
Moses was based upon the fact, that Judah was the acknowledged
leader of the tribes..Hengsteilberyg himself says wiith reference
to this (p. 79): " The whole announcement (of Moses concerning
Judah) is based -upon the supposition that Judah is the forechampion of Israel; and this supposition refers us back to Gen.
xlix.  This is especially apparent in the words:' bring him to
his people,' on which liglht is thrown only by Gen. xlix.  It is
for his people that JuLdah engages in foreign wars, and the Lord,
fulfilling the words:'from the prey, my son, thou goest up,'
brings him  safely to his people."  Is not this a leadership, or
cieftainsliip?-(2), We have also to observe, that our interpretation, at all events, does not compel us to regard the fulfilment of the prophecy containled in Gen. xlix. 10, as completed,.
exhausted, and therefore terminated by the erection of the tabernacle at Shiloh.  The conquest of the land by Joshua ushered in
the period in which the Israelites were to dwell in peace and
quiet in a land of their own.  But when it became apparent
that the repose already secured was to be mixed up with, and
even exchanged for, disquiet and trouble, it was also apparent
that Jacob's prophecy was not yet absolutely fulfilled, that it had
only received a provisional fillfilment, and was now entering
upon a new stage, which would lead to a later fiulfilment in a
higher sense and wider form.  We are, tlerefore, justified in
appealing to the progressive dclevelopment of the chieftainship of
Judah during the subsequent history, as first exhibited in Judges
i. 2, xx. 18 (vid. Hengstenbeerg, p. 81), and continually advancincg till the tirne of David, and then till that of Christ.




JACOB'S PROPtHIETIC BLESSING ON 1ilS SONS.    83.
(12). Having thus exhibited the exegetical proofs, that Jacob
dlid not announce a personal bringer of rest, but merely a period
and a place of Miessianic rest, and having defended these proofs
against all attacks, it will now be perfectly in keeping and very
proper, that we should show how completely this exegetical
result answers to the historical data firnished by that age, and
in how vital, harmonious, and organic a manner history and prophecy are blended together.  I have already entered fully, and
as I think conclusively, into this subject.  All therefore that I
have to do, is to refer to what I have said before.  But it is
necessary here to test the arguments by which Henzgstenberg, in
his description of the connexion between this prophecy and history, has attempted to establish his views and overthrow mline.
Ve read, for example, on p. 67: " The promises which were first
given to Jacob's parents and then transferred to Jacob himself,
included two things: first, a nurerous progeny and the possession
of Canaan; and, secondly, the blessing which should colme
through his descendants upon all nations.  How, then, could it
be expected that Jacob, in transferring these blessings to his
sons, and while in. spirit seeing them already in possession of the
promised land, and describing the places of abode which they'
should occupy, should have entirely lost sight of the second
object which was mlach the more important, and just as often repeated?"  There are two statements here which are not true: (1),
It is not true that the second portion of' the prophecy is as often
repeated as the first. It is only in those promises in which Jehovah
himself pronounces the blessing directly, formally, and solemnly
upon the three patriarchs (on Abraham, Gen. xii. 3 and 18, xxii.
17 seq.; on Isaac, xxvi. 4; on Jacob, xxviii. 14), that the
spiritual blessing is mentioned in connexion with the temporal.
In Gen. xii. 6, xiii. 16, xv. 5, 18, xvii. 4-8 and 16, we have a
whole series of promises made by God to the patriarchs, in which
the temporal blessings alone are referred to.  (2), It is not true
(at least according to our interpretation), that Jacob has altogether passed over the blessing which was to flow through his
descendants to all the nations of the earth. It is expressed in
ver. 10, "and to him  shall the willing obedience (the cheerful
submission) of the people be."  No doubt the reference made
by Jacob, when blessing his sons, to benefits of a spiritual kind, is
F2




84                       JACOB.
less distinct than in Gen. xii. 3, xxvi. 4, xxviii. 14, where Jehovah
himself bestows and describes the blessing. But this is equally
applicable to Gen. xxvii. 29, where Isaac bestows the blessing
upon Jacob.  The relation between these striking variations in
the patriarchal blessing has already been examined and put in
the proper light (vid. Vol.i. ~ 72. 4, and my Einheit der Gen~esis,
p. 94, 95). We see here the difference between the objective proclamation of the blessing on the part of God, and the subjective
apprehension of that blessing on the part of the patriarchs.  On
this point I need not repeat what I have already written.
Hengstenberg continues (p. 67), " Is it not probable that, as
formerly from among the sons of Abraham and Isaac, so now
from among the sons of Jacob, he should be pointed out who
should become the depository of this promise, which was acquiring more and more of a definite shape?" We reply (1), It is not
true that this blessing had acquired more and mtore of a definite
s/ha2e from the time of Abraham's call to that of Jacob's death.
On the contrary, the whole of the descriptions and repetitions
referred to above, which extended over the entire patriarchal age,
did not open it a hair's-breadth wider, and nowhere, I say nowhere, did it receive a more definite shape till Gen. xlix. This
is a fact of great significance, that the blessing, however often it
was repeated, was not extended or more clearly defined during
the whole of the patriarchal age.  And for that reason we have
at least no a priori ground for expecting, that under Jacob, who
stood upon the same footing, under the same influences, with the
same hopes, this blessing would make such enormous progress
in the attainment of a more definite shape.  (2), It shows an
utter want of insight into the nature of the progress observable
in the patriarchal age, when Hengstenberg, in so unreserved a
manner, desires and expects, that because a distinction had been
made between Isaac and Ishmael, and between Jacob and Esau,
the blessing being transmitted to the one to the exclusion of the
other, therefore the same distinction should be made by the
blessing of Jacob among his twelve sons. Did Judah, then,
stand in exactly the same relation to his eleven brethren as Isaac
to Ishmael, or Jacob to Esau? Did the selection of Judah from
the twelve amount to a rejection of the rest, a severance from the
tree of the history of salvation? (3), I have maintained that
there is some progress apparent in Jacob's blessing, viz., in the




JACOB S PROPHETIC BLESSING ON HIS SONS.
elevation of Judah above his brethren, but I cannot possibly class
this elevation with the distinction made between Isaac and Ishmael, or between Jacob and Esau.
Again, at p. 68, we read: " If we do not admit the reference
in this passage to the Messiah, then a very large department of
the future, which was notoriously accessible to Jacob, is left untouched by his announcement."-This sentence is left without
any proof.  But an %pse dixit is not admissible in the field
of science.   Let tHengstenbeg demonstrate to us, therefore,
that the expectation of a personal Messiah was a "department of the future which was notoriously accessible to Jacob!"
-Till then, I shall very properly continue to doubt it. Still, the
Spirit of God, by whose inspiration Jacob prophesied, was not
necessarily restricted to that department of the future which was
notoriously accessible to Jacob; and therefore the Spirit of God
may have opened up to him for the first time a department of
the future which had not been accessible before. Let us assume,
then, for the moment, that HIengstenberfy has given a correct interpretation of Gen. xlix. 10. In that case the expectation of a
personal Messiah would be set forth in this passage in a manner
so clear and intelligible, so definite and free from ambiguity, that
the anticipation of a personal Messiah must henceforth have
pointed out a department of the future notoriously accessible to
every Israelite, and therefore most certainly to 11oses. It is an
indisputable fact, however, that in his blessing on the twelve
tribes, which is completely parallel and analogous to Jacob's
blessing on his sons, )Moses does not make the slightest reference
to a personal Messiah.  Hence, if Hengstenberg's exegesis of
Gen. xlix. 10 be the correct one, there is an entire department
of the future which was accessible to Moses, and yet which is
not in any way referred to in his announcement.  It is evident,
therefore, that either Hengstenberg's mode of arguing is inadmissible, or his assertion that, after Jacob's prophecy, the expectation of a personal Messiah was a department of the future
notoriously accessible to every Israelite, is incorrect.
" If," he proceeds (p. 68), "the reference of the passage to a
personal Messiah be explained away, we should certainly be at
a loss to discover, where the fundamental prophecy of the Messiah
can possibly be found.  We should then, in the first place,
be thrown upon the Messianic Psalms-especially Ps. ii. and
2




JACOB,
cx. But as it is the office of prophecy alone to make known to
the congregation truths absolutely new, it would subvert the
whole relation of Psalm-poetry to prophecy if, in these Psalms,
we were to seek for the origin of the expectations of a personal
Messiah.  They are unintelligible unless we recognise in Shiloh
the first name of the Messiah."-Is this proof?  Is there any
one holding our views, who would think of appealing to Ps. ii.
and cx. as the primary prophecy, the souirce and starting point
of the expectation of a personal Messiah?  Have we not 2 Sam.
vii.?  And why should not this be regarded as the primary
prophecy on which Ps. ii. and cx. are based?
Lastly, on p. 70 he says: " But the historical point of connexion for the announcement of a personal Messiah, which here
at once, like a flaslh of lightning, illuminates the darkness, is by
no means so completely wanting as is commonly asserted.
All the blessings of salvation, which the congregation
possessed at the time when Jacob's blessing was uttered, lad
come to them through single individuals....      h Wy should
not Abraham  be as fit a type of the Messiaih as Mioses, Joshua,
and Davidl?...         r why not Joseph, who, according to
(-Ten. xlvii. 2,'nourished his fithler anld his brethren, antd all
his father's household,' and whom the grateful Egypt-,ians called
the Saviour of the world."' —This is evidently the most platusible, or rather the only plausible argument which fiengsfenber9,
has employed in opposition to my interpretation.  And yet it is
mnere plausibility, which vanishes as soon as any one takes the
trouble to examine my arguments more closely.  I have said,
for example, that in Jacob's time the Miessianic expectation was
still bound up with the promise and expectation, that the unity
of the family would be expanded into the plurality of a nation.
The entrance of salvation could not be regarded as dependent
upon the selection and singling out of any individual.  On the
contrary, from the nature of their previous historical experience,
this could only be regarded as deferring the end desired.  For
whilst, on the one hand, the multiplication of the family into
a great nation, and the possession of a land of their own, had
been made prominent in all the p-romises, as the first and for the
present the only conditions of the entrance of salvation, on the
other hand, when any had hitherto been singled out, it hadl
a!.wayV involved the exclusion of others fromrn ttle chosen eomnm-l



J3X COB'5 P ),Ii(HIIC BLESSING ON H-11S SONS.   87
nity and the necessity for a fresh commencement.  It was not
tLill the unity of the family had been expanded into the plurality
of the nation, and it had been historically demonstrated that it
wvvas not only advantageous but necessary, that this plurality
should be recondcensed into the unity of one helpinlg, saving, and
governing individual, that the true foundation was laid, on which
the expectation of a personal M3Iessiah could be based.
(13). On p. 76 sqq. IHenystenbery traces the blessing on
Judah through the entire listory of Israel, for the purpose of
showing that this prophecy was ma(le promlinent in every period
of the Old Testament, and particularly that the Shiloh passage
was understood by the biblical writers and prophets in the same
way in which he has interpreted it.  But we have still only aroulnents in which confident assertions are used as substitutes for
proof.  Thus in p. 83 he says: " Th/ere cancnot be a doubt that
David gave his son the name Solomon, because he hoped that he
would be a type of the Shiloh" predicted by Jacob.  We cannot
be required to exanmine these arguaments one by one, and treat
them as they deserve.  I will merely notice two points more.
On p. 79 Henysetenbelry mentions the blessing of Aloscs.  He
very properly imaintains that thlis is connected with the blessing
of Jacob, and that it carries it forward.  How th'n, we ask, are
we to explain thne fact that 3Ioses' blessing on Judah does not
contain the slightgest: trace of the expectation of a personal IM-essiah, if that of  Jacob had already announced this expectation in
so clear and unramis-rtakeabl-e a manner, aind had placed it on so
firm and indestructible a foundation? M 2y answer to this question
may be found in Vol. i. ~ 98. 2. But what is Henzgsteznberg's reply
firom his standpoint?   The most charitable supposition, which
I gladly adopt, is th;at he makes no reiply.  For if the answer is
to be found in p. 79, where he says, "even t1he remnarkable
brevity of thlis utt-erance (Moses' blessing on Judalh) points i:ack
to the blessing of Jacob; and with this brevity the lengtih of the
blessing upon Levi, of whom too little had been said by Jacob,
corresponds,"-I must say thiat I have seldom met with canything
more flinsy.  For why is the blessing on Joseph so lonI, in )bothl
in'stances, if lenlgtlh and brevity alternated in the twro blessings?
-In conclusion, I will again refer to Ezek. xxi. 3.'2  It is time
that the words Tm2; ji, 0              should c.a. e   to be taken
as thle rule bvy wA-hcl to rener and exp c'l  l tle  i'cl K),il. in




8                        JACOB,.
Gen. xlix. 10, especially after the theory, that;.tt   is but
another form of -' L  -.t -- amN, has been most properly
given up as utterly fallacious. Moreover, we should altogether
abstain from attributing to the prophet Ezekiel such a play upon
words, as HIengstenberg imputes to him when he says (p. 86):
"the words Lg,,t/    h~'W, which Ezekiel puts in the place
of Shiloh, on the ground of Ps. lxxii., allude to the letters of the
latter word which form the initials (?) of the words in Ezekiel.
That Ad is the main letter in ItNS is shown by the common
abbreviation of it into I, and that the ~ in 9,    is unessential,
is proved by the circumstance, that the name of the place is often
written.tW."  If the passage in Ezekiel bore any conscious
reference to Gen. xlix. 10, and this I no longer dispute, it is not
to be regarded as an explanation or confirmation of it, but simply
as a free allusion to the passage, which the prophet has enriched
with the fulness of his own more expanded views in relation
to the coming Messiah.
DEATH OF JACOB AND JOSEPH,
~ 4. (Gen. xlix. 28-1. 26).-When the patriarch had thus
looked forward with prophetic eye; had seen his descendants in
possession of the land of his pilgrimage; and had announced in
prophetic words the vision he had seen: he concluded by uttering
with renewed earnestness the last wish of his life, that he might
be buried there, in the land of his reminiscences and hopes, and
in the family grave of his fathers.  The execution of this
wish, of which Joseph had already given him an assurance on
oath, he now pressed most urgently upon all his sons. His
account with life was closed, and he died at the age of 147
years. (1). Joseph had the body embalmed by his physicians in
the Egyptian mode, and after the usual period of mourning, obtained Pharaoh's permission, and went with all his brethren and
their households to convey the corpse to its place of destination.




DEATH OF JACOB AlD JOSEPH.             89
The Israelites were accompanied to the borders of the promised
land, by a solemn and numerously attended funeral procession of
Egyptian courtiers and officers of state. There they remained for
seven days mourning together; after whichthe Egyptians departed,
and left the members of the family to bury the corpse in the cave
of Machpelah. (2).  The guilty conscience of Joseph's brethren
now began to trouble them again, and they became uneasy, lest
Joseph should perhaps have only deferred their well-merited
punishment till their aged father's death. But the noble-minded
deliverer and protector of his family anticipated their fears, and
dispelled them with words of comfort: " Ye thought evil against
me; but God meant it unto good to bring to pass, as it is this
day, to save much people alive." Joseph lived sufficiently long
to witness the commencement of the fulfilment of his father's
blessing, for he saw his grandchildren and great-grandchildren;
and as his end approached, looking with faith at the promises of
the future, he took an oath of the children of Israel, that whenever these promises were fulfilled, they would carry his bones
with them to the promised land. He died at the age of 110
years. His body was embalmed and placed in a mummy-case for
preservation. (3).
(1). On chap. xlix. 33. "And when Jacob had made an end
of commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed,
and yielded up the ghost," Calvin correctly observes: non est
supervacua locutio, nempe qua exprimere vult Moses placidam
sancti viri mortem, ac si dixisset, sanctum  senem tranquillo
animi statu membra direxisse quo volebat, qualiter sani et vegeti
se ad somnum componere solent;" and 1M. Baumgarten adds:
"Jacob is the only one of the Old Testament patriarchs,
whom we are able to accompany to his very last hour. And
here we see how the Old Testament death-bed was surrounded
by brightness and peace, the fear of death being swallowed up
in the certain hope of the rest that remaineth for the people of
God."-On the family-vault and the interest attaching to it in
the minds of the patriarchs, see Vol. i. ~ 66.




.9() t!                   JAC OB.
(2). For the Egylptian clst-oms referred to here, consult Hengstenberg's Egypt and the Books of MAoses, p. 66 sqq. (translation).
The fact that Joseph is said to have possessed a large number of
physicians, may be explained from Her'odottus (ii. 84), where we
read that there were special physicians in Egypt for every disease.
On the different modes in which the mrummies were prepared, see
Herodotus (ii. 86-88) and Diodoru?s (i. 91).  Compare also
Friecireich on the Bible (ii. 199 sqq.).  The difference between
the account given here, that Joseph's physicians embalmed his
father, and the statement of Diodo rus (1. c.) to the effect that
there was a regularly organised, hereditary guild appointed for
that purpose, and that the different departments were assigned
to different individuals, may easily be explained, if we take into
consideration the different periods to which the two accounts refer.
IHezgstenberg is certainly correct in saying (p. 67) that " it is
quite natural to suppose, that in the most ancient times this
operation was performed by those to whom  any one entrusted
it; but that afterwards, when the embalning was executed
more according to the rules of art, a distinct class of operators
gradually arose."  There is a striking coincidence between the
statement made here, that the whole period of' mourning, evidently including the forty days of embalhning, extended to
seventy days, and the account given by Diodoui-s (i. 72, 91).
Hengstenberg (p. 68), has shown that there is no discrepancy
between HerocdotUs, ii. 85, and DiodorT'us, i. 72, 91.  The extravagances of the funeral rites of the Egyptians are depicted in
both tihese passages, and their monuments shlow the intensity
and solemnity of their lamentations (vicd. WiYlcinson, i. 256).
Joseph appeals to the courtiers to intercede for him, and obtain
Pharaoh's permission to bury the corpse in Canaan.  The reason why Joseph did not lay his own request before the king,
has been correctly explained by Hengsternberg (ut supra) on the
ground that, according to Egyptian customs, Joseph allowed his
hair and beard to grow during the term of mourning (Ierod.
ii. 36), and that no one was permitted to enter the presence of
the king in this unseemly condition (Glen. xli. 14). iMoreover,
the request had reference to Joseph himself, for as a matter of
course, the minister of a well organised state could not leave the
counlry without the knowledge and consent of the king.  The
v'est, of the Ib)rethirell reqilredl no rc;yal permiss:io  to ili:iy t1s




'DEATII OF JACOB ANI) JOSEPH.              91.
body in Canaan and accompany it thither.  The fact that so
numerous and influential a body of the Egyptians, viz. the elders
of the house of Pharaoh (i.e. the officers of the court), and the
elders of the land of Egypt (the state officials), accompanied the
procession, most likely with an armed guard, shows how highly
Joseph was esteemed and beloved by both the court and the king.
"The custom offuneral-processions," says Possellini, ii.3, p. 395.
"existed in every province of Egypt and in every age of its history.
SWe have seen representations of them  in the oldest graves of
Elethyas; there are similar ones in those of Saqqarah and Gizzeh,
and others also exactly like them in the tombs of Thebes, which
belong to the 18th, 19th, and 20th dynasties." To this, IFengstenbery adds, " When we look at the representations of processions for
the dead upon the monuments, we can fancy we see the funeral
train of Jacob (vid. RTaylor, p. 182)."- As the threshinyg-foor
Altcd ('tO     ) N n: the buck-thorn threshing-floor), at which
the Egyptians turned back after seven days' mourning, is on the
other side, i.e. the east, of the Jordan, the procession did not
take the nearest road, by Gaza and through the territory of the
Philistines, but went by a long circuitous route round the Dead
Sea, and so crossed the Jordan and entered Canaan on the
eastern side.  The reason of this may be attributable to political
circumstances, with which we are unacquainted.  So large a
procession, attended by an armed guard, would probably have
met with difficulties from the contentious Philistines.  It is a
remarkable coincidence, however, that Jacob's corpse should
have talken, or have been compelled to take, the same road,
which his descendants were afterwards obliged to follow in their
journey to the promised land.  We should not be surprised to
find some critic detecting in this an unmistakeaible proof, that
the road, by which the legend states that the body of Jacob was
carried, was first taken from  the journey of the Israelites.
For our part, however, we do not hesitate to express our opinion
most fi-eely, that we discover in this similarity of route one of'
those  events, unintentional and  therefore apparently accidental, that abound in history in general, but particularly in
sacred history, and fiom  the stand-point of the observer are
proofs of the prophetic character with which the biblical history
is always secretly pervacled.  T`uch (p. 593), with his usual
delighl t at te disc"orverl ancl imputation cf erudlities, saTs that




9-2                      JACOB.
the Egyptian escort is described in the Saga as stopping short
before reaching the Jordan, because " the foreign attendants
could not be allowed to tread the holy promised land;" and so
important does he consider the discovery, that he has had the
words printed in italics. But where do we find, in any part of
the Old Testament, the least trace of so harsh and trivial an
idea? And how particularly crude and absurd would such a
notion have been, at a time when the " holy promised land" was
entirely in the possession and occupation of foreigners.  But
Tuch himself assigns the true and perfectly satisfactory reason
for the departure of the Egyptians, when he says: " the actual
interment of the corpse was a matter for the family alone."
This sufficiently explains, why the Egyptians only accompanied
them to the frontier of Canaan. Had so numerous an escort
gone further, it might have excited political disturbances in
Canaan. From the very nature of the case, too, an escort only
goes, as a rule, to the line which separates their own from a
foreign land. But in this instance the procession had hitherto
passed only through a desert, in which there were none but
nomad-hordes, and therefore the boundary of Canaan, at which
the escort stopped, might be regarded in a certain sense as the
boundary of Egypt, especially when we consider, that it was their
intention to pay the greatest honour to the funeral procession, by
going as far as they possibly could.  No one will consider it an
improbable thing, that the place where the Egyptians encamped,
by the floor of A tad, may have received the name " meadow of
the Egyptians," ~Demn yN, from the fact that this splendid procession sojourned there for seven days; and',it will hardly be
regarded as a crime, either against the grammar or the lexicon,
that the author should have laid stress upon the paronomasia
between this name and ty.-2n  lp.S.  " the mourning of the
Egyptians." We have no means of determining the site of the
threshingfloor of Atad with exactness.  Jerome identifies it
with Beth-Hogla, two miles from the Jordan on the road to
Jericho, i.e. to the west of the Jordan (vid. Onomast. art. Area
Atad), but this is at variance with the evident-meaning of the
text.
(3). In v. 23 we read that the children of Machir, the son of
Manasseh, were born on Joseph's lap. From chap. xxx. 3 it is




DEATH OF JACOB AND JOSEPH.              93
evident that this can only mean, that they were adopted by him;
and as that would not lay the foundation of a new tribe, the
tribes of Israel having been fixed once for all, it could only involve
the transfer of Joseph's special rights and property to these
children of Machir, vid. ~ 2.  The body of Joseph was placed
in a wooden sarcophagus.  The Egyptian coffins were generally
constructed of sycamore wood, and were made to resemble the
human body.  (See Herodotus ii. 86).  Il. Baumgarten has
most truly observed: " the last instructions, which Joseph gave
to his brethren, and made them swear that they would fulfil,
are peculiarly important. Joseph remained an Egyptian to the
day of his death, and was, therefore, separated from his brethren.
If, then, before his death, he expressed his certain hope that
they would one day return to Canaan, and his wish to be
associated with that return, his former separation must have
given the greater force to such a desire.  From that time forward the coffin with Joseph's remains became an eloquent witness of the fact that Israel was only a temporary sojourner in
the land of Egypt, and continued to turn its face towards Canaan,
the promised land."
The intercourse between Joseph and his brethren terminated
with their anxiety on account of the injury, which they were conscious of having inflicted upon him, and with Joseph's declaration
of his forgiving love, by which he removed all doubt as to the unalterable nature of the reconciliation that had taken place, and
the perpetuity of his affection for them. Henceforth the brethren
were able to give themselves up to the full enjoyment of the rich
provision he had made for them, without any lingering fear lest
they might one day be punished for their fault, by one whom
they had so deeply injured, in fact without a thought that such
a thing was any longer possible. The touching history of Joseph
is now lying in all its completeness before us, and we have therefore a fitting opportunity for surveying it as a whole.
All the teachers of the Christian Church, who regard the Old
Testament history as the result of God's special and supernatural
direction, have recognised in Joseph a distinct type of Christ (e.g.
Sack, Apologetik 2. A. p. 340 seq.). " In the person of Joseph,"
says Luther, " God foreshadowed both Christ and his entire kingdom in the most brilliant manner in a bodily form. He received
his name on account of his perpetually growing and increasing,




94                         JACOB.
heaping up and accumulating, for Joselph means one who adds.
And the crowning point of the figure is this: as Joseph was
treated by his brethren, so was Christ treated by his brethren,
i.e., by the Jews."  Following this rule, there are some who have
discovered the most striking agreement between Joseph's call
and the events of his life on the one hand, and those of Christ on
the other, even in the most trifling, andl apparently the most
accidental circumstances (vid. e.g. Vitrina:c observv. ss. 1. vi. c.
21; Heim, Bibelstunden i. 540 sqq. and others without number).  There is, in our opinion, just ground for regarding Joseph as a type.  But in this, as in other instances, the true
historical relation between the type and the antitype has been
reversed.  The proper method would have been, first of all, to
determine the fact, that the position, the calling, and the task of
Joseph bore the same relation to the lower stage of development,
at which the kingdom of God had then arrived, as was borne by
those of Christ to the fulness of time, or the time of fulness, and
also to decide how, why, and to what extent such a resemblance
existed. When this had been done, then would have been the time
to show that the resemblance, which can be traced between the
events and results of their lives, was necessary and essential;
whereas otherwise it could only be regarded as accidental, and
therefore unimportant, or else as purely imaginary.  And in this
way it would be shown, that the dissimilarities, which would
otherwise appear sufficient to outweigh and destroy the resemblance, were equally necessary and essential.  Instead of this,
expositors have contented themselves with a merely external
comparison of particular phenomena, and thus have lost themselves in strange and arbitrary conjectures, and grasped a baseless and visionary result.
There are two things to be considered in the history of Joseph,
his relation to heathenism, and his relation to his own people.
He brought salvation to the heathen, and to his brethren also.
We have already shown, in ~ 1 and 2, both how and why Joseph's
peculiar position as the deliverer of Egypt, the representative of
the whole heathen world, was in itself a prophetic event; an
event, which was the result of the deepest impulses at work in
his history, and which, although merely transient and imperfect,
on account of the imperfection of the age of Joseph himself, and
of the circumstances, was for that very reason prophetic.  But




LDEIATH OF JACOB AND JOSEPH.              95
the salvation, which was to proceed from the house of israel,
was not merely salvation for the Gentiles, but first of all salvation fo)r /the hoaise of Israel itself.  And in this respect also, the
moving principle of the history of Israel was typically exhibited
in the person and life of Joseph.  The reason and the cause of
this prototypical nmanifestation of Israel's vocation, precisely at
that time, and in the person of Joseph, are one and the same.
We have already explained, that the patriarchal epoch formed
the first complete and definite stage of the kingdom of God in
Israel; and that this stage bore the same relation to the whole
of the Old Testament history, as the smaller of two concentric
circles bears to the larger.  The common centre will generate in
both the sameformis~; but in the smaller circumference these forms
are on a smaller and less perfect scale, in the larger they reach
their fullest development.  So we do find in Joseph the noblest
blossora of the patriarchal life, the embodiment of all the
true worth that it possessed; but in Christ we see the perfect
blossom, the entire fulness of the whole of the Old Testament
dispensation.
The opposition which Christ and Joseph both met with from
their own people, the hatred, contempt, and persecution, to
which both were exposed, aon the part of those to whom they
were bringing salvation, were not accidental. They sprang from
the same soil, and were the fruit of the same perverse and hostile
disposition, the salte evils, which are so exuberant in the whole
of the Old Testament history, but which appeared in a concentrated and more fully developed form, just at those epochs
in which salvation itself was manifested in a similar way.  The
soil, from which they sprang, was the perversity and selfishness
of human nature; and these had to be overcome by the devotion
and self-sacrifice, in which alone salvation comes to view.  In
other words, it was that natural enmity of the heart, which consciously or unconsciously resists the ways of grace, but which
has to be subdued by the power of the love that comes to meet it.
This selfishness and enmity were manifest, not only in the rude
and profane minds of an Ishmael and an Esau, whose hearts
were hardened into perfect insensibility, and in whose case they
were not subdued by the grace of God; but also in the expressions of self-will, of weak faith or of unbelief, to which Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, gave utterance; though in their case, after a




96                         JACOB.
conflict, of less or greater violence, between grace and nature,
submissive faith and resisting unbelief, they were entirely subdued. They showed themselves more decidedly in Jacob's sons,
since with them the selfishness of nature was no longer under
the immediate and express control of God, but had to submit to
one who was himself a recipient, as well as a mediator of the
divine mercy, one who was naturally their equal, but, according
to the hidden and marvellous wisdom of God, was destined to be
their deliverer and redeemer.  Yet even in this instance the
power of forgiving love, displayed by Joseph, triumphed over
the obstinacy of selfishness in the hearts of his brethren.
This then being the leading principle, on which the course of
salvation in the kingdom of God depends, that its victory over the
evils existing in human nature shall be gained by godlike love,
submission, and self-sacrifice, it is a fundamental law of the whole
of the sacred history, till its ultimate completion, that the way
of salvation leads through abasement to exaltation, through
serving to ruling, through sacrifice to possession, through suffering to glory. And this fundamental law, of which the highest
and most perfect manifestation is seen in the life of the Redeemer, was first displayed in a definite and concrete form in
the life of Joseph.
The typical character of the life of Joseph, then, consists in
this, that he, the first temporary deliverer of Israel, who brought
the first stage of its history to a close, like the perfect Saviour
of Israel, in whom its entire history terminated, was slighted,
despised, persecuted, and betrayed by " his own;" that, like
Him, he passed through abasement, service, and suffering, to
exaltation and glory, and also that, like him, he succeeded at
length in softening their hardened hearts by the fulness of his
forgiving love, and in raising his own to the enjoyment of the
benefits which he had secured for them.  If, in addition to
this, there is often a striking resemblance between particular
incidents and the accidental circumstances, we cannot lay any
very great stress upon this, though we regard it as a mark of
that prophetic spirit, by which the history was directed and
controlled.




( 97 )
GENERAL SURVEY OF THE PATRIARCHAL AGE.
REVELATION, RELIGION, AND GENERAL CULTURE IN THE TIME
OF THE PATRIARCHS.
~ 5. We have already seen (Vol. i. ~ 12. 13), that in order to determine to what extent the consciousness of God was developed
under the Old Testament economy, it is essentially necessary to
make a twofold distinction in the process of divine revclation;
that is to say, it is necessary to distinguish the preservation
and government of the world in general, from the more special
operations connected with the introduction and working out of
the plan of salvation. We have also seen that this distinction
was exhibited to the religious consciousness of the chosen people,
in the two names by which God was known, Elohirn and Jehovah. The only questions remaining for discussion at present are,
whether there was any distinct apprehension in the patriarchal
age, of the difference between these two manifestations of God?
and if so, whether it was expressed by the two different names of
God at that early age?  Some have thought that a negative
answer to these questions is rendered necessary by Ex. vi. 3;
but this is not the case. For, on the one hand, the explanation
of the passage on which this answer is founded is an erroneous
one (1), and on the other, whatever opinion may be entertained
respecting the composition of the book of Genesis (Vol. i. ~ 20. 2),
such a reply is decidedly at variance with the contents of that
book (2).
VOL. 1I.                                   Q




98  THE PATARIARC-HAL AGE.
(1). On the ground of Ex. vi. 3 (where Elohim says to Moses:
" T am Jehovah, and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and
unto Jacob  tt., but by my name,?1  was I not known to
~them"'), it has been very confidently maintained by miodern critics,
that the name;,~,  was not in existence before the time of
Moses, but was first introduced by him in cotnexion with his
peculiar instruction respecting the nature of God.  But in my
work Fin7heit der Genzesis (p. xxii.-xxxii.) I lhave proved at
length that this is an erroneous explanation of the passage.
We shall therefore content ourselves with giving the correct
explanation here, and for a fuller discussion of the question refer
to the work just named, vicd. also Keil, in the Luth. ZeitsclhrifY
1851, i. p. 225 seq.; Htofinactnn, Sehri7ftlbezweis, i. 82 seq.; Delitfsch, Auslegytng der Genesis, p. 26).
For a correct understanding of these words of God, it is indispensable that we should first determine whether the word
~~E5, "I was known," is to be regarded as emphatic or not.
The whole tenor and connexion of the passage, its peculiar mode
of construction and expression, the remarkable importance of its
contents, and the great solemnity with which the words were
uttered, compel us to take the word as emphatic, and to seek the
meaning of the solemn address of God in this word alone; and
doing so, it is necessary to take into account all the depth and
fulness of meaning of which the verb 7-qs is capable. Now it is
well known, how deep and comprehensive a imeaning this verb is
capable of, and, where it is used emphatically, must necessarily
have. In such a case it denotes a thorough insight into, and
grasp of any object, even in its inmost essence.  Perception in
its primary and peculiar sense is by no means merely a superficial knowledge, which only touches the shell, and is content with
the external and accidental appearance of an object; on the contrary it is the reception of an object into one's own spiritual life
as the result of actual personal experience. It presupposes a
close and intimate communion between the subject and the
object, the perceiving mind and the object of perception. Hence
it appears to us to be by no means a forced explanation, but a
very natural one, and one which suits the words as well as the
circumstances, and does full justice to the history contained in
the book of Genesis, as well as to the expression itself, if we
suppose the meaning intended to be conveyed to be this: that




REVELATION, RELIGION, AND GENERAL CULTURE.     99
the Israelites were to be made fully conscious, that they would
immediately receive such a glorious manifestation of the operations of God, as even their celebrated ancestors had not been
permitted to see. The latter had never witnessed, known, or
experienced the whole extent of the fulness and glory of the
divine operations, expressed by the name Jehovah, but these
were now shortly to be displayed. El-S hacldai is the Almigh-ty
God, who, by his creative omnipotence, prepared the natural
conditions and vital agencies required for the development of'
salvation, and hence the word sets forth one view of the Elohistic
existence of God, on which it was necessary that peculiar stress
should be laid (see Einheit der Genesis, p. 124). Jehovah, on
the other hand, is the God engaged in the development of salvation, who enters into it himself, manifests himself in it and with
it, and therefore conducts it with absolute certainty to the desired
result. Jehovah had already ruled and worked in the history of
the patriarchs.  Their history commenced with Jehovah.  It
was by Jehovah that Abraham was chosen and called; and He
p-rpointed him to be the father of the chosen people, the channel
of blessings to the nations.  But to accomplish this result,
Jehovah had to become Elohim, El-Shaddai, that as creator he
might produce the promised seed from an unfruitful body, and
make of it a numerous people. And therefore that which was
actually accomplished in the patriarchal age, that which the
_patriarchs (not mnerely hoped jbr and believed, bu0t) saw and
experienced as a fact fuifilled, was the work, not of Jehovah,
but of EL-SHADDAI. All that Jehovah had performed, in connexion with the patriarchal history, was limited to the election
and call of individuals, to the communication of directions and
promises, and the fostering offaith in the directions and promises given.  Hitherto, there had been no embodiment in fact;
there had been merely the introduction of an idea, which was to
be realized and embodied for the first time at Sinai. Hence the
patriarchs could only grasp the opferations of Jehovah in faith
and hope; they could not see them; they did not feel and know
them as something actually accomplished and fulfilled.  This
was reserved for their descendants, to whom Moses was sent
with the message that it was now about to happen. This then,
and this alone, is the meaning of the words of God: " They
have known nme, my nature, and my operations, as El-Shaddai,
c492




100               THE PATRIARCHAL AGE.
obut not as Jehovah; you, however, shall soon know me as
Jehovah also."
(2). It is a fact that the name Jehova7h occurs all through
the book of Genesis, quite as frequently as the name Elohinm,
not only in the objective narration of the author, but also in the
mouth of God and of the patriarchs.  Various suggestions have
been made, for reconciling this fact with the words of God in
]Ex. vi. 3.  De WVette, Tuclh, StiheliTn, Lengerkce, and many
others suppose the meaning of these words to be, that the name
Jehovah was not in existence before the time of Moses; and on
this supposition they deny the unity of Genesis, and assume
that such passages of that book, as do not contain the name
Jehovah, form together a complete work (the so-called groundwork), whose author intentionally and consistently avoided using
that name in consequence of the statement made in Ex. vi. 3.
A subsequent interpolator or finisher extended this groundwork, and, overlooking the statement contained in that passage,
either used the two names promiscuously in his additions, or
with special reference to their different significations. On the
other hand Hdvernick, Hengstenberg, Drechsler, Keil, and many
others, oppose this interpretation of the verse in Exodus, and
defend the unity of the book of Genesis.  The interchange of
the names of God in that book, they explain entirely on the
ground of the different notions conveyed by the two names.
Ebrcard (das Al ter des Jehovarhnamens: hist. theol. Zeitschrjft
v. Niedner, 1849. iv.), and Delitzsch, in his exposition of Genesis,
endeavour to find a via media between the two, but seek it in
opposite directions. For whilst Ebrard adopts Tuch's explanation of Ex. vi. 3, and yet wishes to maintain the unity of
Genesis, Delitzsch gives up the unity of the book of Genesis,
but yet adopts Hengstenberg's explanation of the passage in
Exodus (Vol. i. ~ 20. 2).
We have already given our opinion as to the meaning of Ex.
vi. 3; and all that we have still to do, is to say whether we give
in our adhesion to the views of Hengstenbery or of Delitzsch.
But this question has little connexion with our present topic,
and, therefore, we shall defer the discussion of it to a more fitting occasion (see, in the meantime, Vol. i. ~ 20. 2). The only
point of importance here is whether the name Jehovah, and the
consciousness of the difference in the manifestations of God




REVELATION, RELIGION, AND GENERAL CULTURE.    101
which that name expresses, were in existence at so early a period
as the patriarchal age. If we admit the unity of the book of
Genesis, this question must of course be answered in the affirmative.  But we are convinced, and that we have now to prove, that
it can and must be answered in the affirmative, even if the correctness of the sup9plemgnenteary hypothesis be assumed.  As proof's
of this we mention the following: (1). In Ex. vi. 3, it is not
expressly said that the name Jehovah was ~unknown before the
time of Moses, but simply that in the patriarchal age God had
not revealed the falness and depths of his nature, to which that
name particularly referred.  The author of the ground-work,
however, from the peculiar nature of his legal and priestly standpoint, was chiefly desirous of making it as clear as possible to
his readers, and of keeping the fact constantly before their minds,
that the Sinaitic covenant and legislation had introduced into
the sacred history a fresh and incomparably superior element of
divine revelation, and that this element alone expressed all that
was included ini the name Jehov-ah. For this reason hle purposely avoided the use of that name, in connexion with the
earlier history.  But he had no intention of saying, that the
name Jehovah was entirely unknown in the patriarchal age;
for (apart from other reasons), we have an absolute proof of this
in the fact that in Jacob's blessing, which indisputably belongs
to him, he puts that name into the mouth of the patriarch (ver.
18).  And this he could very well do, without at all departing
from his original purpose, since Jacob was carried by the spirit
of prophecy into the heart of the Jehovistic times.  If, then,
this blessing was actually pronounced by the patriarch, and
handed down by tradition in the form in which the author has
recorded it, as we think we have unanswerably demonstrated
(~ 3. 3), the evidence afforded by the occurrence of this
name is all the more important.-(2). The supposed finisher of
the work cannot have intended, that Ex. vi. 3 should be understood in the way in which Tuch and the rest explain it; for in
that case he would have placed himself in conscious and evident
opposition to the ground-work, which it was his design to
extend.  We cannot imagine this a possible thing, especially
when we consider, that a slight alteration of the expression contained in the ground-work would have been sufficient to remove
the discrepancy, which is supposed to be so a,-p-)arent; and if the




102                THE PA'rIACIIHAL AGE.
critics are correct, he has frequently made such alterations when
there was far less to be gained.-(3). If it be undeniable, that
the later author represented the name Jehovah, as already known
and current in the patriarchal age, his historical representation
is in our estimation authoritative, for we regard him as a writer
who was filil:d and directed by the Spirit of God, just as
thoroughly ('s the author of the ground-work.-(4). It is.Z`a
priori both a natural and probable supposition that the name
Jehovah was in existence in the patriarchal age. For if the
patriarchs were conscious of the special call, which they had
received, of the peculiarity of their position, and of the extraordinary relation in which God stood to them (and even the
ground-work teaches as much as this), there must have been
some definite terms, which expressed this consciousness, especially
when we consider that it was the source and guiding star of
thle whole course of their lives.
~ 6. Miracle and prophecy are the two indispensable accompaniments, vehicles, and messengers of revelation (see Vol. i. ~ 4).
In each there is a manifestation to man of the fulness of the
godhead; in the former of the power of God, in the latter of his
wisdom.  And through each the divine fulness enters into a
covenant association with the history of humanity, co-operates
in its development, and ensures its safe arrival at its destined
end.  That end is the incarnation of God and the consequent
entrance of the whole fulness of the divine essence, in a living
and personal form, into an intimate and abiding union with man.
We have already shown in Vol. i. ~ 50, howv the first advances
towards this end were manifested in elementary forms, as it
were; how, for example, there was as yet no miraculous power
given to man, whilst the gift of prophecy was but seldom possessed, and that only in particular, culminating points of history (1).-The substance of patriarchal revelation, and its results
in patriarchal history, have already appeared, as we followed the
course of that history in the former parts of this work.  The
sutm of the whole is, that the will of God was revealed in the




REVELATION, RELIGION, AND GENERAL CULTURE.    103
selection, the call, and the appointment of Abraham and his
seed, to be the instruments through whom  salvation should be
introduced and completed; the klnowlecdye of God in the announcement of this call to those who were intrusted with it; and
lastly, the poower of God in the creative production of the prorised seed from  an unfruitful body, in the separation of that
seed from the natural branches, and in the protection and guidance of those who had been chosen.
(1). It is a striking fact, that in the whole of the patriacrchal
history, and in the 1primeval history anterior to it, we do not
neet with a single miactle performed by a zman.  Not even by
an Enoch, who had this testimony that he walked with God, nor
an Abraham, with whom God talked as a friend with his friend;
in fact, none of the fathers ot the old world were workers
of miracles.  Where any miracles occur, they are performed
solely and exclusively by God himself.  We have in this fact
a decisive argument against every mythical explanation of the
patriarchal history, and a strong proof of the historical credibility of this portion of sacred history, as Sckc~' has calready
shown (Apologetik Ed. ii. p. 174).  With what a dense nimnbus
of miracles would any legendary tale have enveloped the heads
of the celebrated founders of the race 1 They woulld assuredly
have been made to surpass in this respect an Elijah and an
Elisha, who were far less celebrated, and whose forms were not
so obscured by the haze of a distant antiquity.  The same may
be said of the gift of prophecy, for, though not perhaps altogether
wanting, there is an analogy in its infrequent and exceptional
appearance.  Abrahami is, no doubt, called a prophet in Gen. xx.
7; but evidently in so general and indefinite a sense (Vol. i. ~ 63.
3), that we cannot for a moment think of that specific gift of
prophecy, which we meet with at a later period as an essential
co-efficient in the development of the nation's history.  We do
not find the least trace of a prophetic utterance on the part of
Abraham.  Isaac and Jacob both prophesy, as ShemI had done
before them  in an exactly similar way, but each of them  prophesies only clce in his life, and in a maniner p erfectly unliune.
Propweey d(oes not apper in tahe   ase,as  conotilnuouls endolw



104                THE PATRIARCHAL AGE.
ment to all, and this is the main point of importance.  It was
not an ofi~ce with which they were entrusted.  In all three the
paternal authority to bless and curse was the principal thing; the
prophecy was a subordinate matter.  The supernatural force of
this paternal authority assimilated itself both to the autl1-lority
of God, of which it was the symbol and the mledium, and also
to the foreknowledge of God; it brought them clown to itself, as it
were, on this particoilar occa.sion (see Vol. i. ~ 72. 1). If we take
a comparative survey of the further course of the sacred history,
we find that Mioses was the firs-t to work a miracle, and that from
thlat time forward, there was a visible increase in the number of
miracles performed by men, through several stages of the history: again they appear less frequently, and for a period cease
altogether, till at length the miracle appears in its most absolute
form in the incarnation of Christ.  The gift of prophecy passes
through essentially the same phases.  On the other hand we
find that visions of God, which are almost the only form  of
revelation in the patriarchal history, gradually decrease in the
subsequent history, in proportion to the increase in the number
of prophets and workers of miracles. In the visions of God the
divine power and knowledge did not enter into human nature,
but moved by the side of, and in connexion with, the agency of
man.  But in the gift of prophecy, and the power to work
miracles, they entered into human nature and became subservient to it.  In the impartation of these gifts to man, there was
an advance towards the incarnation of God.  This absence of
miraculous powers and of the gift of prophecy in the patriarchal
age, and the frequency with which God appeared, are therefore
to be easily explained, as parts of God's regular plan for gradually
revealing and communicating himself to the people of the
covenant. On the other hand, it was no less conditioned by the
regular and gradual development of the people of the covenant
themselves, and especially by the fact that as yet the history of
the patriarchs was affamily-history, and they had not become a
numerous and organised people.  It was an essential element in
the gifts of miracles and prophecy, that the performer of miracles
did not work them prinarily for himself, but for others, and
that the prophet did not proclaim  the message from God for
hinself, but for those around.   Now Abrahamn, Isaac, and
Jacob were the solitary recipients of the divine call; God was




RtEVELATION, RELIGION, AND GENERAL CULTURE.    105
related to them as a friend to a friend, and all the blessing, the
protection, and the light, which he had to impart to them, were
necessarily imparted directly to themselves, since there was no
third person in existence who could mlediate between the two.
It was very different when the seed of Abraham had become a
numerous people. Individuals could then be raised up, endowed
with divine power and wisdolm, to be the channels of power and
light from God to the rest of the people. In fact, it cwas nzecessar-y
that such persons should rise up, to be the typical representatives of the perfect mediatorship of the God-man, to whom the
whole history of the covenant pointed, and at the same time to
prepare the way for his coming, so that when he appeared, it
might be not as a dents ex machinct, but as the ripe fruit, the
complete and mature result of the entire history.
~ 7. The religion and worship of the patriarchs were modified and determined by the nature and extent of the revelation,
which had been transmitted to them by their ancestors, or communicated directly to themselves. As the accounts of primeval
times, which are preserved in the book of Genesis, must, if historically true, have been handed down by tradition, and as this
tradition must have been restricted to the family of the patriarchs, we must necessarily assume that this family possessed an
acquaintance with the religious views embodied in those accounts.
Hence we must presuppose a knowledge on their part of the
unity, the personality, and the holiness of God, the almighty
Creator of the heavens and the earth, of the image of God, in
which man was created, of the corruption into which he had
fallen through sin, and of the hope of a future victory to be
gained by humanity over the principle of evil.  These views
were now to receive a fresh vitality, to be deepened, expanded,
and rendered more definite, by the revelations of which they
were to be the personal recipients.  The peculiar intimacy
with God, which they enjoyed, the call they received, the promises given to them, and the guidance of God, which fitted them




106                THE PATfRIARCIIAL AGE.
for their vocation, all confirmed and enlarged their knowledge
of God and of salvation, and awakened the faith which was
reckoned to them for righteousness, the obedience which cheerfully followed the leadings of God, and the hope, which grasped
the promised salvation as something already possessed, and
rested upon it amidst all the privations they had to endure. The
truth and purity of the religious knowledge of the patriarchs
are great and marvellous when contrasted with heathenism,
which was so deeply sunk in mere nature-worship.  But when
looked at from an objective point of view, however thoroughly it
was fitted to the progressive character of the sacred history, it
appears faulty, imperfect, and one-sided; for it does not present
a single religious notion, in a form sufficiently complete and definite to express fully the objective truth, and even heathenism
often surpassed it in the greater richness and comprehensiveness
of its religious views, although they were perverted to pantheism,
and therefore issued in its own destruction (1). In its comparative poverty, yet absolute purity, the patriarchal worship
resembled the patriarchal religion.  It was always sufficient to
meet the necessities of the moment, but it was destitute of any
systematic and complete organisation; it had no established,
binding rules, and was not attached to any particular persons,
places, or times (2).
(1). The patriarchal conscoiousness of God did not comprehend the doctrine, which was the crowning point of its full development, viz., the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; whilst
heathenism  had prematurely grasped this truth.  But for that
very reason the conceptions of the latter were false and distorted,
and in a pantheistic Trimurti the truth was so caricatured, as to
preclude the possibility of any return or advance towards a true
and purified form of belief.  The doctrine of the Trinity could
not be conceived of, comprehended, and preservedl in its fulness
and purity, until it had appeared as a fact in history, that is, until
the Logos had become mnl ill Christ, worlkilng out redemption




REVELATION, RELIGION, AND GENERAL CULTURE.    107
as the incarnate CGod, and the Spirit had been poured out upon
all flesh on the ground of this complete redemption.  A premature revelation of this sublime mystery in the Divine nature
(that is a revelation, for which no sufficient preparation had been
made in history, and which had not assumed a concrete shape in
these two facts, the incarnation and the outpouring of the Spirit)
would have been all the more injurious, since the spirit of the
age and of the world at that time tended towards a pantheistic
and polytheistic perversion of the idea of God, and Israel was in
danger of being drawn away by its attractions on account of the
elective affinity of its natural inclinations.  In contradistinction
to this perversion, and as a safeguard against it, it was necessary
that the idea of the unity of God should be ineradicably implanted in the consciousness of the people of the covenant, and
that the basis should thus be laid for the Ianifestation and
appropriation of His true tri-unity.  But as these two facts,
the incarnation of the Logos, and the outpouring of the Spirit,
set forth the predetermined end, and the highest perfection of
the covenant-history, and as the whole of that history from
its very commencellmenlt was constantly urged forward towards
this point by the vital principle, with which it was imbued, a corresponding intellectual culture must also hlave existed throughotit the Old Testanment, so as to pave the way for the announcelnent
of this doctrine, and therefore the germs of the doctrine itself
Imust have been deposited even in the patriarchal history.  We
havo already pointed out in Fr. Delitzsch's words, how the two
nalmes of God, Jehovah and Elohirz, contained the undeveloped
and unconscious germs of the perfect doctrine of God (Vol. i. ~
1 3. 1), and we have also shown that the appearance of God in the
ilaleach Jehovah (the angel of the Lord) was a typical precursor
of his incarnation.   Moreover, the description of the vivifying
and fructifying action of the Spirit of God in creation, contained
in Gen. i. 2, was adapted to prepare the way for the revelation
of the triune nature of God.  Yet we do not find in the patriarchal history the least indication of any development of this
doctrine.  The patriarchs had no definite conception of any
hypostatic plurality in the God, who appeared in the  Iialeach
Jehovah, and the recognition of the personality of the Spirit of
CGod was still at so great a distance, that there is not the slightest
reference to it in the patri'rclhal hlistory.
2




108                THE PATRIARCHAL AGE.
There was something in the exclusiveness of the call given in
the time of the patriarchs, in the fact, that is, that Jehovah was
solely and exclusively the God of Israel, which must have rendered the views entertained, respecting the nature and operations
of God, one-sided, rude, and contracted, though there was a
wholesome counteracting influence in the universality of the promise.  But this very rudeness and partiality were necessary and
salutary, for they opposed a powerful barrier to the threatened
amalgamation with heathenism.  It was only out of a mature
and self-sufficient exclusiveness, that true universality could be
produced. The doctrine of salvation, also, had not yet advanced
beyond the very earliest rudiments, as we may learn from the
fact, that the idea of a personal incarnate Messiah, without which
that doctrine could never become perfectly definite and clear,
or be in any way richly developed, was not yet understood
even in its first principles. It was just the samne with the doctrine
of eterncal lfe as with that of the Trinity, and the revelation of
the former in contradistinction to the false and distorted belief in
immortality, which prevailed at that time in the heathen world,
(vid. Henystenberg Beitr. iii. 565 sqq.), was wisely delayed by
the providence of God.  In this case also we find, not error, but
imperfection.  The doctrine of divine retribution in general
was not wanting, but it had not yet led to a knowledge of retribution heireafter. In the living consciousness of the retribution,
which takes place in this life, the true basis was laid for the
belief in retribution in the life to come. Still the old Israelitish
notion of death was, that it was followed, not by annihilation or
by the cessation of the individual life, but by a departure into
Sheol.  (BA,5O  is not a derivative of k;S,, to ask, with the
meaning, "the ever-craving, that which demands all life for
itself," as Hengstenberg, on the Psalms, still maintains; but is to
be regarded as derived from       _  cavum esse, as Gesenius,
Fiirst, Bdttcher, and others assume.  On the etymology of the
word, Gesenius says, s.v.: " The true etymology of the word
seems to be, that Sheol signifies a hollow and subterraneous
place; just as the German Hb6l1e, hell, is originally the same
with IHAhte, a hollow.  For the thorough discussion of this
question see Bottcher, de inferis 9rebusque post mortem fitturis,
vol. i., Dresden 1845, p. 64-78, where the frequent softening
of y into N is clearly shown.  The imperfection of this view




REVELATION, RELIGION, AND GENERAL CULTURE.    109
consisted in the fact, that the hopes of the future could not pass
with any clear consciousness beyond this Sheol, that Sheol itself
was not what it is described in the New Testament as being, a
midcdle placce and an intermediate state (vid. Mlatt. xii. 40;
Luke xvi. 22 sqcc.; 1 Pet. iii. 19, iv. 6; Phil. ii. 10), from
which the righteous would pass to the blessedness of everlasting
life, but was regarded as a. state in which the development of
life would for ever termninate.  There was another respect in
which the early notion of Sheol was imperfect; but the imperfection in this case was conditioned and demanded by the objective imperfection of the actual reality.  It was this, that Sheol
was supposed to be a thoroughly gloomy place of abode, which
had only negative advantages over this earthly life, inasmuch as
it afforded to those who were oppressed by the pains and sorrows
of life, or by the burden of a weary and decrepit old age, the
rest they longed for, and oblivion of earthly care and toil (Gen.
xxv. 8, xxxv. 29); whilst it was actually destitute of' the rich
blessings of our earthly existence, since it condemned to an inactive vegetation and the loss of all the pleasures of life (Ps. vi. 6,
xxx. 10, xxxi. 18, lxxxviii. 13, xciv. 17, cxv. 17). The latter
notion was the necessary effect, produced by the consciousness
that death was the wages of sin (Gen. ii. 17, iii. 19), and therefore a sentence and a punishment, and the absence of any clear
consciousness of redemption and of its influence upon our future
state of existence.  Yet there were certain provisions connected
with the patriarchal age for the further development of these
eschatological elements.  There was a source of comfort in the
fact that death was regarded as being gathered to their fathers
(Gen. xlix. 33), and though the gloominess of the prophet was
not entirely removed in consequence, it was certainly considerably
diminished. Here was at least one element of' positive happiness, connected with the life after death, which opened and
prepared the way for the New Testament doctrine of a separation of the righteous from the wicked, and a happy meeting
of the former with one another and with the Lord (Luke xvi.
22 sqq.; Phil. i. 23, &c.).  There is a mlore distinct reference
to an everlasting life, superior to the barren and gloomy shadelife of Sheol, and stretching beyond it, in the account of Enoch's
translation to God, " in which it is of especial importance to
remark, that his walk with God is intentionally and expressly




110                THE PATRIARCHAL AGE.
placed in a causal connexion with his being taken by God.
And this passage also bears an enigmatical character, tending to produce the impression, that the original revelation
was meant to spread a veil of secrecy over this doctrine, the
blessed influence of which presupposed conditions, that were
not then in existence," Hengstenzbery, Psalms vol. iii. p. lxxxvii.
translation).  In the work just quoted, Henystenbery calls attention to another element of great importance in the development of the doctrine of eternal life, viz., the belief that death
was not the natural and necessary concomitant of human existence, but the wages of sin.  " With this view of death, faith in
an everlasting life could not but break forth, as soon as the hope
of redemption, and of the restoration of that which was lost in
Adam, had taken root.  As death entered into the world by sin,
it could not but be removed by the redemption, which restored to
man the happy state of paradise" (see Is. xi.)-On the Old
Testament doctrine and its gradual expansion consult, particularly, Hengstenberg, Beitr. iii. p. 559-593; Dess, comment. on
the Psalms iv. 2, p. 314-326; H. A. Hahn, de spe immortalit. sub. vet. test. gradatini exculta, Breslau 1846; Oehler, vet.
test. sententia de rebus post mortem  futuris, Stuttg. 1846;
aHdvernick Theol. d. A. T., p. 105 sqq.; Hofrnann, Schriftbeweis i. 500 sqq.
(2). On the worship of the pre-Mosaic times see C. Iken's
two dissertations de institutis et ccerimoniis legis mosaicce ante
Idiosen (in his diss. theolog. vol. ii. 1770). —The fact that so many
of the forms of worship, and of the manners and customs, which
are mentioned in the pre-Mosaic age, re-appear in the legislation of Moses, has been regarded by modern criticism  as so
inexplicable a phenomenon, that it can only be accounted for on
the ground that the author transferred the full-blown " Levitism" of his own age in a thoroughly unhistorical manner, into
his (mythical) description of earlier times. But for our part,
all that we find thoroughly unhistorical is this discovery of
modern criticism itself; for nothing appears to us more natural,
than that the forms of worship, and the manners and customs
which had already taken deep root among the people, should be
adopted and sanctioned by the legislation of Moses, inasmuch as
they were not at variance with the principles of that legislation,
but, on the contrary, were completely adapted to its require



REVELATION., RELIGION, AND GENERAL CULTURE.    111
ments.  On the other hand, nothing appears to us more unnatural, than to suippose that there were no forms of worship in
the pro-Mosaic times at all, or, if there were any, that they
were entirely ignored by the Mosaic legislation.   Besides, it
must also be observed, that whilst there are many points in
which the forms in question resemble each other, there are many
others in which they diverge and differ.  And this dictum  of
criticism appears the more absurd, inasmuch as the forms adopted
in the early history of the Israelitish people were of so general,
simple, and inartificiala kincl, that their adoption was just as natural
and intelligible as the absence of them would be unnatural and
inexplicable (see my Eizuheit cder Genesis, p. xlix. seq., &c.).-We
shall content ourselves at present with merely mentioning the
forms of worship existing in the patriarchal age, and shall reserve
any discussion of their meaning till we come to treat of the Mosaic
legislation. —The most general expression, descriptive of the
patriarchal worship, is the frequently recurring phrase  t..  tqpn~m  (Gen. xii. 8, xiii. 4, xxvi. 25, xxxiii. 20); which means
T:
"to eall, to address by the name of Jehovah," and always implies the adoration of Jehovah (Ps. lxxix. 6, cxvi. 17; Is. xii.
4).  Lutther's translation: " to preach the name of the Lord,"
is very correctly criticized by J'. Bacumgarten (i. 1, p. 172),
as follows: " The different epochs in the divine economy are
confounded by those who suppose, that the patriarchs ever
thought of, or aimed at, the conversion of the heathen.  Missionary worlk was by no means the task of the Old Testament.
When Abraham built altars, and praised the name of the Lord,
this was the expression of his own personal feelings, and his
service as the father of his race." The more special forms of
worship, which we meet with, are prayer (chap. xxiv. 63), altars
and sacrifice (the former principally upon hills and high places,
chap. xii. 8, xxii. 2, for the hills were already regarded as
natural symbols of exaltation, from the humility of their earthly
condition to one more heavenly and divine), purification (chap.
xxxv. 2), vows (xxviii. 20 sqq.), tithes (xiv. 20, xxviii. 20), and
circumcision. This exhausts the forms of worship, to which
any reference is made.
There are still two points, however, about which a great deal
has been written on both sides, and on which we must give our




112               THE PATRIARCHAL AGE.
opinion as briefly as possible, viz., on the observance of the Sabbath, and the existence of any priestly institution in the preMiosaic times. ~With reference to the Sabbath, see Iken, p. 26
sqq. The week of seven days is the earliest measure of time
amongst all nations (vid. G. H. Schubert Lehrb. d. Sternkunde,
Erlangen 1847, p. 204 sqq.), and Philo justly designates the
weekly cycle as 7Tvraovvov Ka 70o5 KOrJ)OV yEVE'loop (de opif.
mundi).  We need not discuss the question here, whether the
universal agreement in this respect is to be explained on the
ground of the agreement between such a division and the four
phases of the moon, or the numlber of the planets, or from the
symbolical dignity of the number seven, or whether it should
rather be referred to a universal revelation made before the
dispersion of the people, in which case we should have to seek
the record of it in Gen. ii. 2.  At all events the division by
weeks was known in the patriarchal age: we find it in fact as
early as the history of the flood, and we have a proof of its
symbolical or religious meaning in its connexion with the marriage festival, chap. xxix. 27, 28, and also with the rite of
circumcision, chap. xvii. 12. Hence it is not in itself an improbable thing, that there may have been some kind of festival
connected with the seventh day, as early as the days of the
patriarchs. At the same time, it must be confessed that we cannot bring any proof of the existence of a Sabbatic festival in the
ante-Sinaitic period. Neither the divine determination in Gen.
ii. 3, to sanctify the seventh day, nor the peculiar form in which
this is first enjoined in the law: " remember the seventh day to
keep it holy," nor the event, which prepared the way for the legal
proclamation of the Sabbath, viz., the fact that no manna fell
upon the seventh day (Ex. xvi. 22 sqq.), can be appealed to as
yielding decisive testimony in the affirmative. But, on the other
hand, we cannot quote these passages as proofs of the contrary as Hengstenberg has done (The Lord's day, p. 7 sqq.,
Engl. transl.).
According to the Talmud and the Rabbins, the priestly rights
belonged exclusively to the first-born before the giving of the
law, and this opinion is shared by Jerome, Selden, Bochart, &c.
But it has been warmly opposed by Outram and Sp3encer, and
especially by Fitringa (de synag. vet. ii. 2, and observ. ss. ii. 2,
3). And their objections are certainly just, for the arguments




.EVELATi'ON, RELIGION, AND GENERAL CULTURE.    113
adduced in favour of any peculiar priesthood are quite ulntenable.  That Esau's raiment, mentioned in Gen. xxvii. 15,
was priestly raiment, is an absurd fiction. That Jacob's blessing in Gen. xlix. 3 included the priesthood among the privileges
of the birthrighlt, is a notion founded entirely upon Luther's
false rendering.  That the young men, whom Moses sent to offer
sacrifice (Ex. xxiv. 5), were all eldest sons, is a gratuitous
assumption; and the substitution of the tribe of Levi for all the
firstborn of the congregation does not prove anything, since
Vitringa is certainly right in saying (p. 272): illos Deo consecratos esse ad ministeriun sacneum non ad sacerdotizum, s. non ut
sacerdotes sed ut sacrifcia.  The natural and historical order
of events was certainly this, that the priestly functions were
usually discharged by the fathers and heads of the families; and
therefore, if the firstborn inherited any priestly rights, it was
simply on account of his becoming the head of the family.  See
Buddei hist. eccl. ed. iv. Vol. i. p. 311 sqq.
~ 8. The general culture of the patriarchs was undoubtedly
affected by their nomadic mode of life.  But nothing can be
more unwarrantable, than to attribute to the patriarchs all the
rudeness and hopeless degradation of ordinary nomad-hordes,
who determinately fence themselves against any influence from
the civilization by which they may be surrounded.  Their wandering mode of life in the holy land was the necessary consequence of their being foreigners without a home.  Their pilgrimage wasforced vpon, themn, and the period of its cessation was
the constant object of their hopes and desires. Hence we find
that, so far as it was possible, they did participate in the benefits
resulting from the culture and civilization of the more settled
tribes, with whom they came in contact. (1)-The external constitution of the patriarchal commonwealth partook of the characteristics of a family. The head of the family concentrated
the whole authority and jurisdiction in his own person; he even
possessed the power of life and death, controlled only by certain
fixed traditions (Gen. xxxviii. 24). The position of the woman
was a subordinate one, as it always was before the time of Christ,
VOL. II.                                    H




114               THE PATRIARCHAL AGE.
her claim to equal rights being nowhere fully recognised. Hence
polygamy was regarded as perfectly justifiable. But we find no
trace among the patriarchs of such degradation of the woman, as
is found wherever she is regarded as nothing but a slave of the
man, affording him the means of perpetuating his race and
gratifying his lusts. On the contrary, we find many a proof of
tile esteem and love which she received as a wife, and of the personal rights which she possessed as the mistress of the house. (2)
We also find the inviolable purity of the marriage bed maintained with such severity that adultery was punished with death
(Gen. xxxviii. 24), and in the case of the patriarchs it was rendered peculiarly important from their consciousness of a divine
call and of the destiny of the family. The strongest incitement
to polygamy arose from the desire to maintain and enlarge the
family, and this was also the cause of the peculiar institution of
the Levirate marriage (see Vol. i., ~ 86. 2).
(1.) Hengstenberg (Beitr. ii. 431 seq.) has made an excellent
collection of proofs that general culture was both sought after
and possessed: " In the case of the patriarchs it is very apparent,
that their wandering mode of life was forced upon them by the
fact that they were sojourners in a land, the whole of which was
held in possession by its original occupants. We find no marks
of the rudeness of nomad tribes. Both mentally and morally
they were on a level with civilized nations. They shared in the
advantages, conveniences, and luxuries enjoyed by more favoured
nations. Jacob possessed a signet-ring; Joseph wore a richly
ornamented dress; Abraham paid for the field he bought, in
coin; the sons of Jacob also took money with them to purchase
corn; and Abraham's servant presented Rebekah with a gold
ring and armlets. Wherever it was possible, the nomadic life
was immediately relinquished.  Lot settled in Sodom, occupied
a house there, and entered too readily into the habits of the
town. When Abraham went down to Egypt, instead of doing
what nomads by profession and inclination have been in the habit
of doing for thousands of years, namely taking up his abode in the
1pasture lands on the border, he went direct to the court of the king




REVELATION, RELIGION, AND GENERAL CULTURE.    115
(Gen. xii. 10 sqc.). He afterwards settled in Hebron as a home,
and was there the prince of God in the midst of the Hittites
(Gen. xxiii.). Isaac lived in the capital of the Philistines, and
occupied a house opposite to the palace (Gen. xxvi. 8).  He
also sowed a field (ver. 12). Jacob built himself a house after
his return from Mesopotamia (chap. xxxiii. 17).-Joseph's dream
of the sheaves of his brethren bowing down to his sheaf is also an
important illustration of the point in question (cf. Vol. i., ~ 84.
1).
(2). There are many proofs that the person of the woman was
highly esteemed. The history of Sarah shows, that in several
respects she had the right to exercise her own authority in the
sphere of domestic life. The consent of the bride was asked on
the occasion of her marriage (chap. xxiv. 58). The husband
showed the most devoted affection to his wife (chap. xxiv. 67,
xxix. 20). The multiplication of wives does not appear to have
been entirely dependent upon the caprice of the husband, but
was generally founded upon, and defended by the barrenness of
the lawful wife (chap. xvi. 2 sqq., xxx. 3, 4, 9). And when any
plan was decided upon, which was intended to alter the general
condition of the family, the wife was asked to give her consent.
Thus, for example, when Jacob fled from Mesopotamia, he
explained his reasons to his wives, that he might obtain their
approbation (chap. xxxi. 4 sqq.).
II 2








SECOND STAGE
IN THE
HISTORY OF THE COVENANT.
THE NATION:
FORM ASSUMED IN THE TIME OF MOSES.








EXTENT, CHARACTER, AND IMPORTANCE OF THIS STAGE',
IN THE
HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT COVENANT.
~ 9. The first stage in the covenant history, which displayed
itself in the form of a family, was brought to an end by the
death of Jacob, unity being an essential element in the idea of a
family. WVith the death of Jacob, the last solitary representative and father of the whole tribe, this unity of the one family
was resolved into a plurality of families; and thus the way was
opened for their becoming a nation. We have now reached the
commencement, therefore, of the second stage in the covenanthistory, in which we shall see the family expand into a nation.
But the growth of any nation is directly and primarily determined
by the people themselves, that is, by the mass of individuals and
families who are united together in a higher, independent commonwealth, by virtue of a common ancestry, a common language, a common religion, and a general uniformity of character.
Such an association, of course, necessarily requires a constitution,
by which the individuals are held together. This again involves
another indispensable condition, viz., a prosperous population, in
independent possession of a land of their own, and one that is
suited to the character of the inhabitants. But at the commencement of the stage. before us, we find none of these conditions fulfilled; though by the decree and promise of God they
existed potentially in the dodekad of the families, and gradually attained to the requisite fulfilment.  The first step, then,
towards the future nation is to be found in such an organisation
of the people, as formed the substratum of all further developmnent. This was the embryo-state of the nation. Egypt ( ~ 1. 7)




120                    SECOND STAGE.
was the womb, as it were, in which the germs of the promised
people were deposited, that it might guard them  and nourish
them  by its natural powers, till they had grown into a great
nation.  As soon as the embryo had reached maturity, i.e., as
soon as the people had become so strong as to require and
demand an independent existence, an impulse from within urged
them  to seek that independence, and did not rest till it was
secured.  The exodus from Egypt represents the natural birth
of the people, and the Egyptian oppression resembles those
labour-pains without which, in this earthly state, no life can be
brought into existence.  The wonders of God in Egypt, the
strong arm of the Lord, which was stretched out to help and
save, were the instruments of divine surgery by which the natural
force of the mature embryo, then striving for independent existence, was enabled to attain its end.  By the exocds Israel
gained an independent position, and stood upon an equal footing
with other nations, in fact, became at nation like all the rest. The
first step in the development of the national existence, viz., the
preparcation of the people of the covenant, had now attained its
object.  Moses, the man  of God, was the instrument of the
divine assistance; being called by God, and filrnished with
divine power to be the saviour of Israel.
But Israel was not to be mer-ely a nation, like the other
nations, resting on no other basis than that of natural life.
According to its vocation and its destiny it was to be the nation
of God, the holy nation, the chosen race, the possessor and messenger of salvation for all the nations of the earth.  And thus
the nation entered upon the second stage in its history.  CMoses,
the deliverer of the people by the power of God, led them to the
nmajestic altar of the Lord, that altar which He, the creator of
the heavens and the earth, had erected for himself among the
rocks of Sinai, with their heads lifted towards heaven; and
there they were set apart as a holy nation.  If the cx.odus firolm




iTS EXTENT, CHARACTER, AND IMPORTANCE.        121
Egypt was the natural birth of the nation, the conclusion of the
covenant at Sinai was the religious consecration of the new-born
infant; its regenerat'ion to a higher life.  But as God never
demands without giving, so he never gives without demanding.
And therefore, when Israel entered upon the )rivileyes of the
covenant-nation, and obtained possession of the gifts and goods,
the promises and hopes of the covenant, it necessarily undertook
the duties of a covenant-nation, and submitted to the commandments, the restrictions, and the sacrifices which such a relation
involved.  The conclusion of the covenant was therefore accompanied by the givinyg of a law, which defined the privileges and
prescribed the duties of the covenant-nation.  This law also
conferred upon Israel a constitution, suited to its vocation and
its future destiny, by which its internal organisation was completed, its external distinctions defined, and its safety ensured.
The events attendant upon the legislation and the conclusion of
the covenant ushered in the second step in the onward progress
of the nationt, namely, the determination of the peculiar constitution, which was henceforth to regulate the course and development of the history of' Israel, in other words, the establishment
of the theocrcacy.  The mediator of the covenant and the agent
in the foundation of the theocracy was ]MJoses, the man of
God (1).
But the development of the nation was not yet complete. In
the first step of this stage in its history, Israel had received its
natural freedom and independence; in the second, its sacred dedication and covenant. One thing was still wanting, however, which
was an essential pre-requisite to the actual realization of the
whole of these, viz. a country suited to its natural and spiritual
character, its position, and its destiny. In the third step of its
national history this want was satisfied, and it obtained possession of the land, which the providence of God had selected as the,rena o,1n wl.ich the covenalt-history was to run its course, and




122                   SECOND STAGEC
which the mercy of God had already promised to the fathers,
The divine hero, by whom Israel was led through conflict and
victory to the possession of this treasure, was Joshua, who continued and completed the work which Moses had begun.
The condition and possessions of Israel now embraced all
that was requisite, to sustain and exhibit a national existence
devoted to God, by the side of the other nations, which were at
enmity against God. Country and people, laws and promises,
constitution and worship were given; and they contained the
germs of all their future development.  This brings us to the
commencement of the fourth step in the history of the covenant,
which we find in the existence of a nation entrusted with the
task of working out its _peculiar nationality.  Hitherto the
operations and gifts of God had stood in the foreground. But
the time had now arrived, when the works of Israel in performance of the covenant were to stand prominently forward; when
Israel might, and should have shown, that the gifts, and leadings,
and revelations of God, which it had hitherto received, it could
now use and apply for itself; and when it should have taught
the way in which this could be done. Again and again, however, it forsook the path of the covenant; and God had continually
to interfere, and by punishment and chastening to save and heal.
Surrounding nations were employed to execute his sentences, and
Judges were afterwards sent as his messengers of salvation.
(1). The second step of this stage was indisputably the most
important and eventful.  We must, therefore, examine it with
especial care. In doing so we shall divide it into two parts.
The first will contain an account of the historical foundationzs,
on which the theocracy was based, and the circumstances amidst
which the legislation, that established it, was completed.  The
second will consist of a systematic analysis of the legislation
itself.
The sources from wlich our knowledge of the first two steps
must be derived are the last four books of Pentateuch. As cl'i2




SCENE OF THE HISTORY.                123
tical and exegetical aids we recommend especially the works
already mentioned (in Vol. i. ~ 14-20), of Hdivernick, 1anlke,
Hengstenberg, 4T1elte, Keil, Rosenmiidler, and M. Baumgarten.
In addition to historical works of a more general character, the
following monographs deserve particular notice: Warburton's
divine legation of Moses; Fr. Hacff, fiber Mose's welthistorische Bedeutung (Studien der evangelischen Geistlichkeit. Wiirtemberg vi. 2 p. 3 sqq.); E. Osiander, Blicke auf Moses (Christoterpe, 1837 p. 77 sqq.); Patr. Fairbairn's Typology of Scripture, vol. ii., the Mosaic period, Edinburgh, 1847.
SCENE OF THE HISTORY.
Compare the aids mentioned in Vol. i., ~ 15. 2; also Leon de,
Laborde et Linant, voyage de l'Arabie petree, Paris, 1830, and
Leon de Laborde, Cornmentaire geographique sur I'Exode et les
Nombres, Paris and Leipzic, 1841-4, as well as the works named
in Vol. iii., ~ 2 and 23.
~ 10. An immense tract of desert stretches along the north
of Africa, commencing at the coast on the north-west, and running not only through Africa, but into Asia as far as the steppes
of the Euphrates. The only interruption which it meets with
is from the Nile, whose fertilising waters flow completely across
the desert, and have produced a fruitful oasis, which bears the
name of Egypt, and is one of the most ancient and important
of all the civilized lands, that have figured in the history of the
human race. By far the larger part of this desert, towards the
west, consists of low land, and is known by the name of the
Sahara.  The portion immediately bordering upon Egypt is
called the Libyan desert. On the other side of the Nile, at the
point where the sand regains its supremacy, the A rabian desert
commences, and stretches thence to the Euphrates. This eastern
division, which is much smaller than, the other, is hillyv and is




124                   SECOND STAGE.
intersected or bounded by mountain ranges, which vary in extent,
and on which there are here and there fertile spots, proportioned
in size to the springs which produce them.  For some distance
the breadth of the Arabian desert is considerably diminished
by the Red Sea, which reaches almost as far as the Mediterranean. This enormous bay is formed by the Indian Ocean, and
terminates in two smaller gulfs, which enclose a portion of the
Arabian desert, and give it the character of a peninsula. Both
of these gulfs receive their ancient, as well as their modern
names, from towns which stand, or have stood, in the neighbourhood. The western arm was formerly called the Heroopoblitan
gulf, the eastern the Elanitic; at present the former is called
the gulf of Suez, the latter the gulf of A4Ckabath. The mountains
of Idumea (Mount Seir) stretch fiom the Elanitic gulf to the
Dead Sea, intersecting the Arabian plateau from north to south,
and dividing it into two unequal parts.  The western half (the
smaller of the two), including the mountains of Idumea, has
been known since the time of the Romnans as Arabia Petrcea.
This name is not derived from the rocky nature of the soil, as
is commonly, though erroneously, supposed, but from the strong
city of Petra in the land of the Edomites. Under the last of the
Emperors Arabia Petrea was called Pakcestina tertia. The name
was given on correct geographical grounds, the whole district
being apparently an integral part of the mountainous region of
Palestine (the provinces of Judah and Ephraim were named
Palcestina prima, and Galilee, with the country beyond Jordan,
Palcestina secunda). It was also designated Palcestina salutaris
on account of the healthy nature of the climate in the Ilountains of Edom.  The northern boundary of Arabia Petraea,
from the mouth of the Pelusiac arm of the Nile as far as Gaza,
is formed by the Mediterranean Sea; from Gaza to the southern
extremity of the Dead Sea, it is bounded by the mountains
of Judah, which are already known to us by the name of thle
2




SCENE OF THE HISTORY.                125
mountains of the Amorites (Vol. i., ~ 40. 4). Towards the south,
it runs between the two arms of the Red Sea, and terminates
in the promontory of Bas-Ml]ohanmmed.  The larger or eastern
half of the Arabian desert, to which the Romans gave the name
of Arabia deserta, commences on the other side of the Idumean
mountains. It stretches eastward as far as the Euphrates, northward to Damascus, running by the side of the fertile highlands
of the country beyond Jordan (~ 42), and southward to a considerable distance into the heart of Arabia proper (Arabia felix.)
The last-named portion of the Asiatico-African desert, and also
the portion first referred to (the Sahara with the Lybian desert)
lie altogether beyond the province of our history, the first stage
of which belongs to Egypt, the second to Arahbia Petrceca, and
the third and fourth to EPalestine.  Palestine has already been
described (Vol. i., ~ 38-43). The only portion of Egypt with
which we are concerned is the eastern part of the country, viz.,
the province of Goshen, for which see ~ 1. 5, and ~ 37-42.
It only remains for us to take a survey of the characteristics of
Arabia Petreea. At present, however, we shall content ourselves
with the most general features.  A more particular description
will be given, as the history brings the different localities under
our notice.
~ 11. In the heart of the peninsula, which is enclosed by the
Heroopolitan and Elanitic gulfs, somewhat towards the south,
rise the mountains of Sinai (Jebel el Tur), from which the whole
country has received the name of the peninszula of inai.  Sinai
consists of a nearly circular group of mountains from forty to
sixty miles in diameter. The average height of the mountains
composing this group is six or seven thousand feet above the
level of the sea, about 2000 feet above the surrounding valleys
and plains. Two of the highest points are almost in the centre
of the range, Sinai itself (Jebel Musa, 7097 feet high) and M~ount
Catherine (Jebel el Homr, 8168 feet)..As soon as the traveller




126                    SECOND STAGE.
leaves the burning heat of the sandy desert, and enters within
the limits of these mountains, he finds a genial Alpine climate,
and a cool refreshing breeze.  Copious streams of water flow
down from the mountains, and fertilize the soil, causing it to
produce a most luxuriant herbage. Date-palms, acacias, dense
bushes of tamarisks, white thorns, mulberry trees, vigorous
spice plants, and green shrubs are found on every hand, wherever the bare rock is not entirely destitute of soil. And where
the hand of man has done anything to cultivate the ground, there
are apricots and oranges in rich profusion, with other valuable
kinds of trees. It is true, there is a striking contrast between the
richly wooded valleys and the steep, barren rocks by which they
are so closely confined; but so much the more majestic is the
aspect of these mighty masses of rugged rock.  The mountains
are also frequented by great quantities of game and fowl of different descriptions; among others by antelopes and gazelles,
partridges, pigeons, and quails.  The geological base of this
range consists of large masses of primary rock, principally granite,
porphyry, and syenite. The promontories are chalk, limestone,
and sandstone.  There is another large group of mountains on
the north-west of the mountains of Sinai, called the Serbat
Mountains, which rise like an island between the lower coastline of el-Kaa and the deep valley of Feiran, by which they are
bounded on the north.  They reach the height of 6342 feet.
The Serbal itself, a mighty giant of the desert, crowned by five
peaks, is surrounded by lower mountains; the whole group
deriving its name from the lofty mountain in the centre.  This
cluster is connected with that of Sinai by the Saddle-mountain,
Jebel-el-Kaweit.  For further details see Vol. iii., ~ 5-8.
~ 12. In the northern part of this cluster of mountains, there
is a waste and sandy tract of table-land, Debbet-er-Ramleh, about
3000 feet above the level of the sea. It is nearly semicircular,
and runs diagonally across the peninsula (from  E.S.E. to




SCENE OF THE HISTORY.                127
WV.N.WV.), reaching almost from the one gulf to the. other.  On
the north of this are the limestone et-Tih mountains, which
rise to the height of 4300 feet, and run like a crescent-shaped
wall, parallel to the tract of table-land, from the Elanitic gulf,
almost to the gulf of Suez.  At this point they turn towards
the N.N.W., and follow the line of the coast.  The latter
portion of the range is called Jebel-er-Rahah.  This long mountain wall, of about sixty German miles in length, forms a second
section of Arabia Petrma.  On the northern side of the et-Tih
mountains, and the eastern side of those of Jebel-er-Ralhah,
there is an extensive tract of table-land called the desert of etTih-Beni-Israel (i.e., the confusion of the children of Israel).
The Arabs still make a distinction between this and the desert
of Jifar, and confine the latter name to the western and northwestern edge of the tract, which lies at a lower level, and extends to Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea. Properly speaking,
these two deserts form the (Asiatic) continuation of the Sahara,
which is interrupted by the Nile. Barren rocks of lime and sandstone, hills of dazzling chalk and red sand, form almost the only
variation in this dreary desert, which is thickly strewed with
black flints and gravel.  It is only in the recesses of the Wady,
that sufficient water is collected in the rainy season to enable a
few miserable plants to yield a meal to the passing herds; and
there are a few springs, surrounded by trees, which furnish to
the travelling caravans a welcome place of encampment.  (For
further particulars see Vol. iii., ~ 23-31). On the north a wide
valley, the Wady ]liurreh, separates the desert from the mountainous district of Palestine. Towards the east it slopes off into
a broad, deep valley, the so-called Arabah, which extends from
the southern points of the Dead Sea to the northern end of the
Elanitic gulf, a distance of more than a hundred miles.  This
valley is like a continuation of the valley of the Jordan, the Ghor
(see Vol. i., ~ 39. 5), and in the Old Testament they are called by




128                    SECOND STAGE.
the common name, Arabah. It is a broad sandy desert, the surface of whlich is covered with innumerable sand-heaps and little
hills.  Here and there you meet with green oases, shrubs, and
palms, and even with the ruins of ancient towns. The water-shed
of the Arabah is twenty-five miles from the Elanitic gulf. Further
to the north the waters flow through the WTady el-Jib into the
Dead Sea. The low level of the Dead Sea (Vol. i., ~ 39. 6) is a
sufficient proof that the northern part of the Arabah is below
the level of the ocean.
~ 13. On the east of the Arabah rise the steep and rugged
mountains of ldcoircea (or Mount Seir, now es Sklerah or Jebal),
which are almost of the same length as the Arabah itself, stretching from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Akabah, with an average
breadth of fifteen or twenty miles. The loftiest peaks are hardly
3000 feet high.  They are steep and rugged cliffs of porphyry,
which protrude themselves from the chalk formation, and are
again surrounded by immense masses of sandstone. Among the
shattered fragments of rock, there are valleys covered with trees,
shrubs, and flowery meads.  The higher ground is sometimes
sown with corn. The vines in these valleys are as large, and
the grapes as sweet, as in any part of Palestine itself. In some
places there are woods, or what pass for woods in these countries, and spice-bearing plants, growing out of clefts in the rock,
which furnish a plentiful supply for the sustenance of wild goats
and gazelles.  But while there are isolated examples of great
fertility, the general aspect of the mountains is wild and bare,
and the western mountains especially are described as altogether
barren and unfruitful (Vol. i., ~ 73. 1).
On the eastern side, the mountains of Idumsea slope off
just as smoothly and gradually, as they rise abruptly on the
western. Following the range on which Idumsea is situated, we
arrive at the mountainous country of the Moabites, the modern
Kerek, which lies to the north of Idummea, on the east of the




SCENE OF THE HISTORY.              129
Dead Sea.  The southern boundary, by which this district is
separated from the mountains of Iclumsea, is the Wady el-Ahsy
(el-Kurahy), which opens at the southern end of the Dead Sea.
On the north it is bounded by the deep rocky valley, through
which the brook Arnon flows, which enters the Dead Sea near
the centre of the eastern side. The Arnon divides the Kerek
from the highlands of el-Belkah on the east of the Jordan
(Vol. i. ~ 42, 3). In the nature of its soil the Kerek forms a
link between the highlands of Palestine beyond the Arnon,
which consist for the most part of table-land, and the mountains
of es-Sherah, the aspect of which is most rugged and grotesque.
But the conformation and geological character of the Kerek are
far from being sufficiently known, to enable us to describe its
details with accuracy, or to employ all the Old Testament data
with any degree of certainty.
VOL. II.                                   t








FIRST STEP
TOWARDS THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATION.
ISRAEL'S SOJOURN IN EGYPT;
OR
THE PREPARATION OF THE PEOPLE OF THE COVENANT,
A PERIOD OF 430 YEARS.








( 133 )
CONDITION OF THE ISRtAELITES
AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATION DURING THE PERIOD
SPENT IN EGYPT.
~ 14. (Exodus i.) -The historical records of the Old Testament pass very quickly over the first three centuries and a half
of the period of 430 years (1), to which the sojourn of the children of Israel in Egypt extended.  Still there is no ground for
attributing to these records either faultiness or omissions, pro..
vided we do not measure them by such a standard, as is foreign
both to the intention of the records and to the circumstances of the
case (2). In accordance with both of these, the historian is content to relate the extraordinarily rapid increase of Jacob's descendants in general but characteristic terms (ver. 6, 7), and
then passes at once to a description of the circumstances, which
eventually led to Israel's departure from Egypt. The rapidity
with which their numbers increased may be learned from the
census, taken shortly after the Exodus, from which we may infer
that there were in all about two million souls (3). So long as there
was a continuance of the good understanding, established by
Joseph between the ruling dynasty in Egypt and the Israelitish
settlers, —so long, that is, as the former could ensure the faithfulness and attachment of the latter,-this rapid increase in the number of the Israelites must have been a most welcome thing to the
Egyptian rulers; for it enabled them with the greater ease to fulfil
the task which the policy of Egypt imposed upon them, of guard



134                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
ing carefully against incursions on the part of the hostile hordes
to the East.-But the government of that time was apparently
overthrown by force, and a new dynasty (4) arose. As this put
an end to the relations of confidence and devotion, which had
existed from the time of Joseph, between the government and the
nomadic settlers in the land of Goshen, the extent to which the
latter were increasing could not but suggest the possibility, that
opposing interests might one day give rise to political difficulties.
On the one hand, for example, it must have appeared a dangerous
thing to have so powerful and numerous a body of men, estrangedl from the ruling government, just in that border province
of the kingdom, which was continually threatened by the tribes
on the East, who were ready to invade it for the purpose of plunder or conquest.  How easily might it happen, that the latter
would find in the Israelites, not protectors of Egypt, but confederates in their enterprise. On the other hand, it was to the interest
of the government to prevent the settlers from leaving the country,
that they might not lose so considerable a body of useful subjects 
and it became all the more important to put a timely check upon
their wish to emigrate, on account of the increasing desire of the
descendants of Jacob to possess the promised land, which they
regarded as their proper home.   Under these circumstances it
seemed most advisable to break the free and independent spirit of
the shepherd-tribe, and to set bounds to the excessive rate at
which they were increasing, by forcing them to hard labour and
tributary service (5).  But this was so far from accomplishing
the end desired, that the dreaded increase went on at a still more
threatening rate. This partial failure in their plans only drove
the government to adopt severer measures still. The Hebrew
midwives received secret orders from the king, to put the Hebrew boys to death in some private way, as soon as they were
born.  But these measures were also unsuccessful, and, therefore, tfie king of Egypt male known his ruthless policy ill




CONDITION OF TIHE ISRAELITES.           135
the most undisguised manner, by issuing a command to all the
Egyptians, to drown the new-born sons of the Israelites in the
iiver Nile (6).  It is not known how long this command was
strictly enforced, but its extreme inhumanity is sufficient to
warrant us in believing that it could not be carried out for any
considerable length of time.  Moreover, the Egyptians knew
well, that whilst it was policy on their part to weaken, it was
highly impolitic to exterminate the Israelites.
(1). The length of their stay in Egypt is clearly and unequivocally stated in Exodus xii. 40 to have been 430 years: " Now
the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was
four hundred and thirty years."  In the Septuagint, however,
(Codex Vaticanus) we read:'H &8 -rapolicrvots TOiv vi)V'lopayX,
~ v 7appcveav ev y'ALyV7r'7r  gatl ev ryj Xavaav 6E`7 TerpalcoCta
LptaKcovTa. In the Alexandrian Codex the word?raptO7jo'av is
followed by the clause ai'TO''cat ol 7raTcpe? aVrrTv. We find
the same reading in the Samaritan texts and the Targum of
Jonathan.  Hence, according to these, the 430 years included
the 215 years, during which the three patriarchs sojourned in
Canaan.
We must first enquire, therefore, which is the reading of the
original text: whether the words in question have been omitted
from the Hebrew, by accident or design, or whether they have
been interpolated in the versions in which they occur. To this
we reply, that an impartial examination of all the argumentspro
and con yields the most decided and indisputable testimony to
the genuineness of the Hebrew text.  There are no various
readings in the Hebrew MSS. (vid. Rosenmiiller Comm. ii. p. 222),
which might lead us to doubt the authenticity of the received
version; and whilst the Hebrew is recommended by its simple,
natural, and inartificial construction, the Sep2tuagint is rendered
just as suspicious by the opposite qualities. At the very first
glance these additions look like artificial emendations of the
text, which have been made on the supposition that 430 years
was too long a period for the stay in Egypt.  Starting with this
assumption, it was very easy to include the period spent in
Canaan, especially as this embraced exactly half of the 43()




136                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
years. But this rendered it necessary to add the clause CEv ry7
Xavaa'v.  Moreover, we see the evidence of a guilty conscience
in the unskilful clause aviioi Icat o0 7raTrepe avTc'v, which is introduced for the purpose of removing the apparent incongruity,
of reckoning Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, among the children of
Israel; for this inaccuracy would no more have given offence to
an unprejudiced mind, than the similar one in Gen. xlvi. 8, where
Jacob is reckoned as one of the children of Israel.  Moreover,
the alteration is a very unfortunate one, for it does not entirely
answer its purpose, as the principal clause, " the sojourning of
the children of Israel was 430 years," still remains.  It is not
likely that the words were written by the translator himself,
since Theophilu8 of Antioch, who always follows the Septuagint,
frequently speaks of a 430 years' sojourn in Egypt (ad Autolycum
iii. 9. 24). But if they were, we know what liberties he took
with the text, and how often he has altered it, especially in
chronological statements, probably to suit some preconceived
system.  Seyffarth's hypothesis, that the chronological accounts
in the Hebrew text originally tallied with those of the Septuagint, but that they were altered by the Jewish academy at
Tiberias, for the purpose of sustaining their Messianic expectations, is too arbitrary and unfounded to meet with support (vid.
his Chronologia sacra p. 218 sqq.).  The agreement between
the Samaritan and Chaldee and the Sel2tuagint only proves that
in their case there was the same reason for shortening the 430
years.  The apostle Paul, it is true, also reckons 430 years from
the call of Abraham to the giving of the law (Gal. iii. 17), but
as his statement is founded upon the Septuagint, it cannot be
regarded as an independent authority.  Paul was writing for
Greeks, who were only acquainted with the Septuagint, and as
the question of chronology did not in the least affect his argument,
it would have been as much out of place on his part to correct
the Septuagint, as it is on the part of his expositors to appeal to
the doctrine of inspiration in connexion with this passage.
Josephus also says (Ant. ii. 15, ~ 2), that the Israelites left
Egypt 430 years after the entrance of Abraham into Canaan;
but we know how little dependence can be placed upon his
chronological statements with reference to the earlier times, and
in this case they lose all their worth, on account of his having
spoken in two other places of 400 years as the duration of the




CONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES.           137
oppression of Israel in Egypt (Ant. ii. 9, ~ 1, and De bello jud.
V. 9, ~ 4). In addition to the arguments already adduced in
favour of the authenticity of the reading in the Hebrew text, we
may also mention the circumstance that it is impossible to see
what end could be served by an intentional omission of the
words in question; whereas, as we shall presently show, it is by
no means difficult to ascertain the motives for an artificial
emendation of the passage by the introduction of the clause.
And if that be the case, the agreement between the Samaritan,
the paraphrase, and the Septuagint loses all its importance,
though they are apparently independent of one another.
By the influence of the authorities just named, the notion, that
the 430 years were to be reckoned from Abraham, became a
settled tradition both among Jews and Christians, and was
adopted even by expositors, who followed the Hebrew text in
every other case, and admitted its authenticity in the present
instance.  The fetters of this tradition were first broken by J.
B. iKoppe (progr. quo Israelitas non ccv. sed ccccxxx. annos in
Aegypto commoratos esse efficitur. Gdttingen 1777), and he was
immediately followed by J. G. Frank (novum. syst. chronol.
fundam. Gittingen 1778).  Since then the opposite view has
become the prevailing one. It has been supported by Rosenmidler (ad. h. i. p. 220 sqq.), Hofmann (in the Stucdien u.
Kritiken 1839, p. 402 sqq.), Tiele (Comm. ad. Gen. xv. 13
sqq., and his Chronol. d. A. T. p. 33 sqq.), Ewald (Geschichte
i. 454 sqq.), Bunsen (Aegypten i. 214 sqq.), Delitzsch (Genesis
Ed. 2. 1. 363 seq.), L. Reinke (Beitr. zur Erklhrung d. A. Test.
Miinster 1851), and many others. ]J. Baumygarten, however, has
revived the old traditional explanation (theol. comm. i. 474 sqq.)
We will commence by examining the arguments of those who
are of opinion that the call of Abraham must be taken as the
terminus a quo.  They are founded upon Gen. xv. 13-16,
Ex. vi. 16-20, and Nunm. xxvi. 59, all of' which are said to be
irreconcileable with the notion that the stay of the Israelites in
Egypt lasted 430 years.-The first passage cited is Gen. xv.
13 —16. Jehovah announces to Abraham: " thy seed shall be a
stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and
they shall afflict them/four hundred years. And also that nation,
whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterward will they come
out with great substance.  And thou shalt go to thy fathers in




138                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
peace, thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth
generation they shall come hither again." The argument founded upon this by Bengel (ordo temjvorzum, ed. ii. p. 53 seq.),
and Baumgarten (i. 190 seq.), rests upon the assumption
that the announcement of a 400 years' sojourn in a foreign land
refers to a definite chronological period, to be reckoned from the
birth of Isaac (viz. from that time to the birth of Jacob sixty
years, thence to the migration into Egypt 130 years, and lastly
the time spent in Egypt 210 years, in all 400), whereas the
430 years, mentioned in Ex. xii. 40, are supposed to be calculated from the first call of Abraham in Haran (which must in
that case have taken place five years before he removed to
Canaan).  But the commencement of the 400 years of service
must be looked for, not in Canaan, but in Egypt. This has
been shown in a brief but forcible manner by Hofmann (p.
402).  " Can it be supposed," he says, "that God was here
predicting to Abraham  something which had already taken
place in part, in his own history?.... To Abraham's
seed Canaan was not' a land that was not theirs;' on the
contrary, it already belonged to his seed by promise, though
not by possession.  Moreover, there was nothing resembling
service and oppression in Canaan."   Baumgarten replies to
this, with some plausibility it must be confessed, that the last
argument tells as much against Ilofmann's own explanation.
The actual servitude was confined to the closing period, the
reign of only two Pharaohs. And if the whole of the time from
Jacob's going down to Egypt to the accession of the new king
(Ex. i. 8) must be included in the period of Israel's servitude
and oppression, there is no reason why the same designation
should not apply equally well to the history of the last two
patriarchs.  The reason why it must be so applied is, that the
most important part of the announcement is the fact of their
living as foreigners (,m~,',), and that this mode of life commrenced with Abraham, and was to continue with Isaac.  But
even if this were granted, there would still be two difficulties in
the way. In the divine announcement only one land is spoken
of, in which they were to be strangers, to serve and to be afflicted,
as in a land that was not theirs; and we cannot, therefore,
think of both Canaan and Egypt, especially as the words " afterward shall they come bacck" (.~lW.) place the land in which
T




CONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES.             139
they were to serve and to be oppressed for 400 years in direct
antithesis to the land of Canaan, the land of their fathers. The
departure from the land of bondage (ver. 14) is a return home to
their own land.  Moreover, it is expressly announced to Abraham, in evident contrast with the foreign life, the servitude, and
the oppression of his seed, that he shall die in peace and in a
prosperous old age.  From this it follows that the remainder
of Abrahaml's life, at least, cannot be included in the 400
years; and just as little can we include the lives of Isaac and
Jacob, which in this respect resembled Abraham's.  But if we
are thus brought to the conclusion, that the 400 years refer
exclusively to the period spent in Egypt, there is certainly a
difference between this announcement, and the passage in Ex.
xii. 40 which speaks of 430 years.  But who would think for
a moment of calling this a discrepancy?   In Gen. xv. 13
we have a prophetic declaration, in which a round number is
quite in place.  In Ex. xii. 40, on the contrary, we have a definite chronological and historical statement. —WVith regard to
the four generations, mentioned in vcr. 16, it would be a most
arbitrary thing to assign to these a different starting point from
the 400 years in ver. 13, and to restrict them to the stay in
Egypt, as Benyel and Bauingarten are obliged to do.  The
four generations are evidently identical with the four centuries.
Baumgarten is perfectly right when he says, in opposition to
Tiele, that'io' does not mean a century, but a generation, an
age; but he is just as decidedly in the wrong, when he supposes
it to represent the modern artificial notion of a generation of
thirty years. Hofmann had already given the correct explariation.  "   he says, " was not to the Hebrew an artificially
calculated cyevea, of which there were three in a century, but
embraced, as Gen. vii. 1 is quite sufficient to prove, the sum
total of the lives of all the men uwho were living at the same
time; and according to the ordinary length of life at that time,
this would give a century as the duration of each generation."
The meaning of the word h-5; is still more apparent from Ex.
i. 6, where we read "and Joseph died, and all his brethren, and
all that generation," especially if we compare Gen. 1. 23, where
Joseph is said to have seen his grandchildren's grandchildren,
all of whom are reckoned in Ex. i. 6 as one generation.
The second passage, which is thought to beh irreconcilcablo with




140                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT,
a 430 years' stay in Egypt, is Exodus vi. 16 —20.  We have
there a genealogical table of the tribe of Levi, in which Moses
and Aaron are said to belong to the fourth generation (Levi,
Kehath, Amram, Aaron).  Levi was 137 years old when he
died, Kehath 133, Amram 137; and when the Israelites went out
of Egypt, Aaron was only 83. If from these numbers we deduct
Levi's age when they first went down to Egypt, and the age at
which Kehath and Amram begat children, the sum of these
numbers will fall very far short of the 430 years mentioned in
Ex. xii. 40, and consequently, it is said, we must either give to
Ex. xii. 40 a different meaning from that which lies upon the
surface, or there will be an irreconcileable discrepancy between
the two accounts.-J. G. Franck endeavours to bring this
genealogy into harmony with the 430 years, by assuming that
the sons in this family were not born till their fathers had nearly
reached the end of their life, and that Levi begat Kehath seventyfive years after he went down to Egypt (Astron. Grundrechnung
der bibl. Gesch. Gottes. Dessau u. Leipzxig 1783, p. 178). But
there is something so forced and unnatural in this explanation,
that it is not likely to meet with approbation. Moreover, it is
impossible to reconcile either this or Bengel's explanation with
Num. iii. 27, 28, on which we shall presently speak more at
large. But we do not want any such artificial aids'in order to
escape from the difficulty; for the explanation suggested by
Koppe, Tiele, Hfofmann, and others, that some of the members
have been omitted from this genealogical table, is perfectly satisfactory. It is well known that such omissions are very common
in the biblical genealogies, and in the present instance their
occurrence is attested by indisputable proofs. In Num. xxvi.
29 sqq., we find six members comprised within the same space
of time, viz., from Joseph to Zelaphehad; in I Chr. ii. 3 sqq.,
there are seven persons mentioned between Judah and Bezaliel;
and in 1 Chr. vii. 22 sqq., there are as many as ten named firom
Ephraim to Joshua. Then, again, from a comparison which Hofmann has instituted between the other genealogies of Levi in Ex.
vi. and I Chr. vi., it is evident that there are names omitted froml
the former, which have been obtained from other sources and inserted in the latter. The fact that only four names are given in the
pedigree of Moses and Aaron, may be simply and satisfactorily explained, as lof7cnann has acutely observed, if we suppose that the
2




CONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES.          141
number was selected with an evident reference to Gen. xv. 16, for
the purpose of showing that the prediction was fulfilled. " Sometimes particular members are omitted; at other times several are
linked together. The four members, which commonly appear, are
intended merely to represent the four generations who dwelt in
Egypt. And this is the reason why the ages of Levi, Kehath,
Anmram, and Moses, are given; and not to enable us to calculate
how long the Israelites were in Egypt, which they would never
enable us to do."
Lastly, we are referred to Num. xxvi. 59, compared with
Ex. vi. 20. In the second passage, Moses' mother, Jochebed, is
called the aunt (;,'') of her husband Amram, and this is stated
even more plainly and decidedly in Num. xxvi. 59: " The name
of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom
(his wife) bare to Levi in Egypt."  If now Moses' mother was
Amram's aunt and Levi's daughter, it is at once apparent that
there is no room for the assumption that any members have been
omitted from the genealogical list in the sixth chapter of Exodus.
But when we look a little more closely into this argument, which
is evidently the most important of all, it is quite clear that the
expression, " a daughter of Levi," is not to be taken literally.
Jochebed may be called a daughter of Levi, in the same sense in
which Christ is called a son of David. Nor is there anything
more conclusive in the statement that Jochebed was Amram's
aunt, for'57 and;-r5' may both be used to express blood-relationship in general; for example, on comparing Jeremiah xxxii.
12 with ver. 7, we find IoI7 applied to the son of the uncle, and
also to the uncle himself. But even if there have been several
members omitted, the probability of which we pointed out above,
Jochebed may still have been Amram's aunt in the strict sense
of the word. At the same time we must admit, that the words
" Jochebed a daughter of Levi, whom (his wife) bare to Levi in
in Egypt" (Num. xxvi. 59), as they stand here, cannot mean
anything else than his own daughter. But if this be the meaning, Jochebed must have been at least fifty or sixty years old
when she was married, even if the stay in Egypt lasted only
210 years; and that would be certainly a most improbable age.
There is sufficient, therefore, to suggest the thought, that there
may be a corruption of the text or an error of some kind in Num.
xxvi. 59; and we might perhaps be justified in coming to the




142                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
same conclusion on account of the harsh and peculiar forhi of
the sentence, tV1= 2      n;4 G od! P >    -),  in which
there is no subject.  The Septuagint appears to have read tAni
instead of,-nr: v'yTcrp A  evi,  e TEKe TOVTOV~ Tr  A evS eV'At/wYrrpo.  The word TovTovs here can only refer to Aaron,
Moses, and Miriam, whose names occur immediately afterwards.
We cannot certainly make up our minds to pronounce the
reading DnDn the correct one, on the authority of the Septuagint.
Moreover n3Rn does not, strictly speaking, mean ro6Tovs, but
avTrov0, and would properly refer to persons already mentioned,
not to those about to be named. Still even this deviation on the
part of the Septuagint, when taken in connection with the
absence of any subject, is a proof of the suspicious character of
the passage in general. To us the whole clause, commencing
with,;l't   t'U, has the appearance of a gloss, appended to the
preceding words ~q9-nl; and the author of the gloss seems to
have understood s     - in its literal sense, as denoting an actual
daughter of Levi, and then to have endeavoured to soften down
the improbability of Moses' mother being a daughter of Levi, by
appending a clause, to the effect that the daughter in question
was born in Egypt.  This gloss, we admit, must have been
introduced at a very early period, as it is found in every codex
and every version. But, in any case, the professedly chronological
statement in Ex. xii. 40, confirmed as it is in a most decided
manner by Gen. xv. 13, is more deserving of confidence than
the suspicious notice in Num. xxvi. 59.
But, to return to Ex. xii. 40, Baumgarten holds fast to the reading of the Hebrew text, but thinks it possible to explain it as the
Septuagint has done. He says: " There is an analogy in the computation of the forty years occupied in the journey through the desert (Num. xiv. 33, 34). In this passage thirty-eight years were
reckoned as forty, because the two years, which had already
elapsed, were considered as belonging to the same category of
years of punishment, as the other thirty-eight, when once the apostasy of Israel had come to light" (p. 475 sq.). And just in the
same manner, he thinks, could the 210 years, spent in Egypt, be
reckoned as 430, the 220 years, which had elapsed from the call
of Abraham to the migration to Egypt, being placed in the
same category of servitude and exile, as the subsequent 210.




CONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES.            143
I1 this, however, we cannot agree with him.  The difference
between thirty-eight and forty is not by any mleans the same
as that between 210 and 430. An inaccuracy of expression in
the case of the former would not be very striking, but in that of
the latter it would be a most startling thing.  However, this is
not really how the matter stands.  The two years spent in the
desert, of which great part had already elapsed, might very well
be regarded as years of punishment, inasmuch as the apostasy,
which came to a head at Kadesh, and was followed by the rejection of the people, had really commenced at Sinai in the first
year of their journey, when they worshipped the golden calf (see
Vol. i., ~ 51. 2). Now there is nothing resembling this in the circumstances before us.  The free, unfettered pilgrimage of an independent nomad-chief in a land, which God had promised him as
his own inheritance, could not be placed, without further explanation, in the same category as the residence of a tribe in a state
of oppression and servitude in a foreign land. Moreover, in the
former case, the two years were spent in the same place as the
thirty-eight; but in the latter the 220 years were passed in a
totally different place from the 210.  Luther spent thirty-eight
out of the sixty-three years of his life at Wittenberg; but no
reasonable man would think of saying that he lived at Wittenberg sixty-three years, however true it might be that the first
twenty-five years of his life were but the " preliminary stages"
of his Wittenberg career.  The absurdity of the attempt made
by Bzuddeus (hist. eccl. i. 455) and others, to save the traditional
explanation by translating the passage: "I'eregrinatio filiorum
Israel, qtui comlmorati sunt in Aegypto, fuit 430 annorum," is
too apparent on philological grounds, for it to need any refutation.
Lastly, Baumgarten brings against such of the modern expositors, as have given up the old, traditional explanation, the very
severe charge of " having no eyes for anything but the mere surface of things." He fancies that he has discovered in the essential unity of the whole period, from the call of Abraham to the
exodus from Egypt, a reason why it was absolutely necessary,
that a chronological statement should be given in Exodus xii.
40, embracing that period in its entire extent. But as the chronological limits of the interval between the call of Abraham and
the migration into Egypt had already been described in the




144                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
book of Genesis, we are quite unable to discover any such necessity.
Another argument against the old interpretation is founded
upon Num. iii. 27, 28, and is sufficient in itself to decide the
question. It has been brought forward by Koppe, Rosenmiiller,
and Tiele, and we will give it in Tiele's words.  In his Chronology (p. 36) he says: "According to Num. iii. 27, 28, the
Kehathites were divided into four branches, the Ainramites,
the Izcharites, the Hebronites, and the Uzzielites, containing
together 8600 men and boys, the women and girls not being
counted. Of these about a fourth part, or 2150men and boys,
would belong to the Amramites. Now Moses himself had only
two sons, as we learn from Exodus xviii. 3, 4. Hence if Amram,
the son of Kehath and the founder of the Amramites, was the
same person as Amram the father of Moses, Moses must have
had 2147 brothers and nephews. But as such a supposition is
quite impossible, it must be granted that this is sufficient to
prove, that Amram the son of Kehath was not the father of
Moses, but that a series of names, whose number cannot be
determined, have been omitted between the first Amram and his
later descendant and namesake."  To this Baumgarten replies
(i. 2, p. 268 seq.): "this would be trifling with the whole science
of statistics, but it is founded upon too hasty a calculation, viz.
upon the supposition, that the rate of increase proceeded quite
as slowly in the three other branches, as in that of Aneram
himself, which would be in any case a very extraordinary
phenomenon."  But this does not by any means remove the
difficulty. Are we to believe, then, that Kehath's descendants
through Amrram consisted of no more than six males, at the
time of the census recorded in Num. iii. (viz. Moses and his two
sons, and Aaron and his two sons, Eleazar and Ithamar), whilst
his descendants through the other three sons consisted, at the
very same period, of 8656 males (i.e. 2885 each).  This certainly is a large demand upon our faith. Still, as we cannot
positively say that it is impossible, we submit, and believe.
But we are further required to believe (according to Num.iii. 27)
that at this census the six Amramites-(what am I saying?
there could not have been six of them; there could really only
have been two included in the census, viz. the two sons of
Moses; for Aaron and his sons were priests, to whom the Levites




CONDI'TION OF THE ISRAELITES.          145
were to be assigned as a present, and as it was for this very
purpose that the census was taken, they would certainly not be
included in it any more than Moses himself); —hence then we are
required to believe that the two remaining Amramites formed a
distinct "family, " a llishljsachah (~ 16), with precisely the same
privileges and duties, as the 2885 Izcharites, the 2885 fIebronites, and the 2885 Uzzielites (Num. iii. 27 sqq.)! We must
candidly confess, that our faith will not reach so far as this.
Whilst Bengel, Baumgarten, and others pronounce 430 years
much too long a period, according to the standard of their biblicotheological system, for the stay of the Israelites in Egypt, Bunsen measures it by the standard of his Egypto-chronological
system, and decides that it is much too short. And his conviction, that the statement is not historical, is strengthened by the
fact, that 430 years is just double the 215 years of the patriarchs.
These 215 patriarchal years he considers historical, because they
form part of the tradition.  " For the period of the stay in
Egypt no historical reckoning was handed down, any more than
the history itself.  Hence the patriarchal number was doubled,
and the nuimber thus obtained was applied to a period of much
longer duration, and treated as historical, though not founded
upon genealogical tables." Lepsius, on the other hand, arrives
at the very opposite conclusion, and thinks that he can find
in Ex. vi. 16 sqq., a proof of his Egyptologico-chronological
statement, that the Israelites did not remain in Egypt more
than about ninety years!! (vid. ~ 43. 1).
(2). De Wette complains of the "immense gcp" between
Genesis and Exodus, and expresses his opinion that it is " useless
to attempt to restore the history and establish any connexion;"
(Beitrdige zur Einleitung in d. A. T. ii. 1.69). On this supposed
gap Vatke rests his hypothesis, that Mosaism was a later product of the prophetic period, and says that even according to the
account contained in the Pentateuch, there was evidently but
little foundation for the Mosaic constitution to rest upon; (Religion d. A. T. 1. 204). Bruno Bauer (in his Rel. d. a. Test. i.
105 sqq.) says that the historian leaps over the lengthened period
without the slightest suspicion of its importance; that even to
the present day, commentators have imitated him in taking this
leap in an equally unscrupulous manner; and that although
there has been at length a revival of the critical consciousness
VOL. II.                                   K




146                   ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
in De TPette, apologists have not been able to offer any reply to
his arguments, since hitherto they have not manifested the least
idea of the importance of the gap itself.  Yet the remarks of
Hdavernieck (Linl. i. 2, p. 173), and especially of Rancnke (Unterss.
ii. p. 2), are not so irrelevant after all.  The latter observes,
"the work would be faulty, if it had been the intention of tile
writer to give a complete history of all the events which happened to the Israelites.  But as the express design of the work
embraced merely the relation of Israel to Jehovah, he was
content to pass over the whole interval, during which the chosen
people were growing into a great people according to the prophecies in the book of Genesis, and simply state that those prophecies were fulfilled.  This was all that the centuries in question
contributed to the development of the theocratic plan, and in
this respect they stood far behind the few days, in which Jehovah
magnified himself in his people before the eyes of' the Egyptians."
We may also quote the general remarlks of Berthea6u (zur Gesch.
d. Isr. p. 202) as both striking in themselves and applicable
here.  "There is no historical work," he says, " in which the
selection and arrangement of the events narrated are so exclusively and unmistakeably regulated by one idea as in the historical
books of the Old Testament.  Everything is looked at from one
point of view; prosperity and misfortune, slavery and redemption,
joy and sorrow, are all regarded as operations of God on behalf
of his people.  T'lere is nothing mentioned, which does not admit
of being easily and intelligibly described from this point of view.
This will explain the fact that nothing is said of the lengthened
period, during which the Israelites were in Egypt, and so little
of the period of the Judges.  The historical writings of the
Hebrews are as dififerent as they possibly can be from chronicles
and annals, or a mere recital of naked facts."  Even Lengerke
expresses himself in the same considerate manner (i. 368): "A
description of this period formed no part of the plan proposed
by the authors of the Pentateuch. The prediction in Gen. xv. 3
(? 13) contained all that was necessary. Whatever did not serve
to exhibit the fulfilment of the promises of God is either treated
very briefly, at least by the original work, or else passed over in
perfect silence.  The intention is merely to write a history,
lhaving a particular reference to the possession of Palestine.
And even of the period of the captivity in Eastern Asia, which




CONDiTION OF THE ISRAELITES.             147
occurred in an age of letters, the reminiscences are very
few."
If we look into the question a little more closely, we find that
in reality everything has been given, which fiom the nature of
the case could be given, or which from the tendency and design
of the record ougyht to be given; and it soon becomes apparent,
that it is unreasonable to require anything further, or at all
events to speak of it as a necessary thing.  (1). One of the principal facts of historical importance, connected with this period,
was the multiplication of Jacob's descendants.  It is evident
that this was an important subject to introduce into the record,
since it was both the result of the foregoing history and the fulfilment of its predictions, and also the substratum for the history
of the time to come. And have we not all that is required in
the account contained in Exodus i., which, however summary it
may be, gives a lively and graphic description of the rate at
which this increase took place?  There is no one, surely, who
would demand complete genealogical evidence of this increase!
-(2). The history, which immediately follows, contains an account of the exodus from Egypt, in which Jehovah first manifested himself in so glorious a manner as the deliverer of his
people; and it was quite as indispensable that this should be
preceded by a historical description of the change which occurred in the policy of the Pharaohs, when the favoured
foreigners became an object of hatred, mistrust, and ever-increasing oppression.  And in our opinion, this demand has been
amply met, so far, at least, as the intention and standpoint of
the author were concerned.-(3). Another object of importance
in the history of this period would be a sketch of the lives of
prominent individuals. But it is a question, whether there were
any persons of peculiar distinction, and if there were, whether
the events of their lives were handed down by tradition in the
samle vivid manner as those of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and
even if this were the case, whether they were of such a nature,
that the author could regard them  as bearing sufficiently upon
the design of his work to be worth preserving.  The last question may be answered decidedly in the negative; the second may
probably be so answered, and possibly the first also,  The
biographical sketches, which have been handed down to us in
the patriarchal history of the book of Genesis, were regarded by
K2




-1-48               ISRAEL IN EGYPl.
the author as interesting and important; merely because, and so
far as, they were proofs of the special care and guidance of God.
If, then, this special guidance of God was not apparent during the
period in question, because it was not required; however interesting the lives of particular persons might be from other points of
view, for our author's purpose they would not be of any importance. But on the whole it is very probable, that there were no
memorials of any particular note handed down by tradition, and
perhaps there were no persons of any particular note during that
period; for the peculiar circumstances which gave so much importance to the persons of the patriarchs, and impressed their
history upon tradition in so indelible a manner, were altogether
wanting during the period spent in Egypt.-(4). This period
evidently derived great importance from the fact, that Israel was
then brought into contact with a, state, which had reached the
highest stage of development both in a religious and political
point of view; and this contact could not fail to exert a considerable influence, either of a beneficial or an injurious character,
upon the early history of a people, which was just then in a condition to receive and to require cultivation.  We have already
said (~ 1. 7), that one of the principal reasons why Israel was
led by God into Egypt, must in our opinion have been, that
the Israelites might there undergo such humnan preparation as
would fit them to receive a theocratic constitution.  Should we
not then be justified in expecting that the author would mention this, and give some information respecting it?  Most certainly, if his manner of writing history had been the same as
that of the 18th and 19th centuries. A historian of our age
would no doubt feel it to be his duty, and a necessary part of his
work, to enter into the peculiar nature of Egyptian culture, its
science and religion, its industry and politics, and to search for
the traces, unfortunately too few, of the influence exerted by
these upon the culture and development of Israel; but this
formed no part of the plan of the Israelitish historian, who had
no eye for anything but the movements, which took place under
the immediate guidance of God.-And (5), lastly, with regard
to the condition and progress of Israel in matters of religion and
worship, and in the arrangements of domestic and civil life,
we must not overlook the fact that it is never the custom of
Israelitish historians to enter into any minute description of such




CONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES.             149
points as these, or to notice their historical development; so
that we must gather our information respecting them from such
occasional data as we possess, just as we are obliged to do in the
case of the patriarchs themselves (~ 5 sqq.).  On the other hand
we must equally bear in mind the fact, that to ain Israelite the
theocratic legislation at Sinai appeared so much like a new creation on the part of Jehovah, that he lost sight altogether of the
other, viz., the natural side of that legislation, that is to say, of'
its connexion with any manners, customs, and circumstances,
which had existed before.  And however little we may regard the
giving of the law at Sinai as a Deus ex machinz, however we
may be disposed to recognise the important bearing of previous
circumstances upon that legislation, we can easily understand how
an Israelitish historian might overlook that importance, and undervalue the human basis, on account of the high estimate which he
formed of the part performed by God in the giving of the law.
(3). From the census taken at Sinai (Num. i.) it appeared,
that the whole number of men, " from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war in Israel," was 603,550.
If to these we add 400,000 male children under twenty years of
age, and suppose the females to have been about as numerous as the
males, we find that the entire mass of the people of Israel amounted
to more than two million souls.  But it is a gross mistake to
suppose that the two millions were all the direct descendants
of Jacob.  When Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt, they
must certainly have taken with them all their men-servants and
maid-servants, as well as all their cattle, for these formed a portion
of their wealth.  We have no information as to the exact number of the latter.  But we know that Abraham had 318 servants
fit for war and trained to arms; his nomadic household,
therefore, must have contained more than a thousand souls.
Jacob, again, who inherited all these, brought with him from
Syria so many men-servants and maid-servants, and so much
cattle, that, when he was afraid of an attack from Esau, he
divided them into two armies. With such data as these, then,
we are justi' cct in assuming that the number of those who went
down w;J'l Jacob to Egypt was not limited to his sixtyesdix
child' -  and grandchildren, but consisted of several thousand
mrnen-servants and maid-servants.  But according to Gen. xvii.
1'2, 1 3, these had been all received by circumcision itto the re



150                   ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
ligious com1munity  of the children of Israel, and thus the distinction between nmaster and servant, which is never very marked
anmong nomads, must have been still further softened down.  In
Egypt, where the striking  contrast between Israelites  and
Egyptians was necessarily a great impediment in the way of
intermarriages, the descendants of Jacob will no doubt have
married the descendants of his servants.  And under such circunmstances the distinction must gradually have worn away.
Hence we regard tlhe two million souls, who left Egypt after the
lapse of 430 years, as the posterity of the whole of the people
who went down into Egypt with Jacob.  But even then, this increase to two millions would be unparalleled in history. WVe must
look upon this fact therefore in the light of divine providence,
and regardc it as a special blessing from  God, the fulfilment
of the promise given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In addition
to this we may also quote both ancient and modern witnesses,
who all ag'ree, that the productiveness of both men and animals
is far greater in Egypt than elsewhere.  Arxistotle, for example,
says (hist. animal. 7. 4): HoXXahcK  Kcat 7roXXaxov (i&KrovJ6
yvvatKce,) oov 7rept A'yrV77rTO  v TlVTOlv'L 8E Kal poia Kat TETTapa,
7TXeo'tTA 8E TlKcTETcaL 7TETEI 7O V  aptlOLOV, 9)78(? yap  77'TaLt KCaL ToVTO
Kat C E7Tt 7TELOVav.  Colimtnella writes to the same effect (de re
rust. 3, 8): Aegyptiis et Afris gemini partus familiares et pauee
solemlnes sunt; and Pliny (hist. nat. 7, 3):  Et in Aegypto
septenos uno utero simul. gigni, auctor est Trogus.  For more
modern accounts consult Rosenmniiler's altes undl neues Morgenland i. p. 252.  Froln this we may see that, even if we deduct
something friom the accounts as being greatly exaggerated, Egypt
must in this respect have (been peculiarly fitted for effecting the
purpose, which it was intended to accomnplish in connexion with
the house of Israel.
(4). We are of opinion that the statement in chap. i. 8:
"there arose at NEW KING i4n Egy/pt who knew not Joseph," indicates not merely a change of government within the same
dynasty, but the suppression of a former dynasty.  It was so
understood by Josephus (ant. ii. 9. 1.: T's8 f3aCoLXeias etl aXX\ov
olKcoV IeTeXflqrvOvia~); and the following reasons lead us to the
same conclusion. (1). The wordl D.q7 requires it.  Let any one
take a concordance in his hand, and he will find that U.~p and,CqP, wLhen used in such a connexion, always denote an entirely




CONDITION OF TIIHE ISRAELITES.         151
fresh commencement, and never a regular advance of the same
description, or a renewal of something which existed before.
(2). This explanation is supported by the expression, yd d%,Atl-r-  "he knew not Joseph."  For these words must mean,
either that the new king actually did not know, or that he would
not know anything of Josepl's services on behalf of Egypt.  If
the latter be the meaning, we must necessarily assume that some
kind of hostility existed between the new king, who now arose,
and his predecessors, to whom Joseph had rendered such services;
and this would be most simply explained on the assumption,
that there had been a forcible change of dynasty. In the former
case, we should either have to seek an explanation of the ignorance
of the new king with regard to Joseph's history, in the fact that
the Egyptians had entirely forgotten it and therefore the new king
had never heard of it at all; or else to assume that there was
some other cause, which prevented the new king from becoming
acquainted with what Joseph had done. The former is absolutely inconceivable, when we consider the diligence and zeal,
which the Egyptians are well known to have displayed in the
preservation of their history. And we cannot think of any other
cause, unless the new king had moved in a totally different sphere
ifom his immediate predecessors; which brings us at once to the
assumption, that he was the founder of a new dynasty. Some
light is thrown upon the meaning of the word VW~ "to know,"
in such a connexion, by Deut. xxviii. 36.  The lawgiver there
announces to the people, that the punishment of their apostasy
from Jehovah will be, that they will be brought into slavery,
" unto a nation, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known."
From this passage we clearly see, that the word yAd in such a
connexion does not denote a mere historicl acquaintance with
any object, but an acquaintance founded upon friendly intercourse with each other.  The nation, to whom Israel was to be
given up as a prey, would be an entirely foreign nation, which
would have no regard whatever for the Israelites. And this was
the case here; the new king, who rose up in Egypt, had no
regard for Israel, and took no interest in its welfare.-(3). The
connexion of this passage with ver. 6, 7, is to our mind completely decisive: " and Joseph died, and all his brethren and all
that generation, and the children of Israel were fiuitful, and
increased abundantly, and nmultiplied and wlaxed exceedingly




152                 ISRAEL IN EGYP'T.
mighty, and the land was filled with them; and there arose up a
new king, &c. " In this passage all the kings, who reigned from the
time of Joseph to the period in question, are evidently placed together under one point of view, and in a common relation to the new
king. The new king must therefore have been new, in a totally
different sense from that in which every one of the successors of
the earlier Pharaoh had been a new khing. In the writer's view they
all formed one  ielech, in contrast with the king, who now came
to the throne; i.e., they were one dynasty by the side of the founder
of a new dynasty. In support of this, also, we may appeal to
Deut. xxviii. 36': "Jehovah will bring thee, and thy king which
thou shalt set overt thee," into subjection to a foreign nation.
The general and particular use of the word iielech are here
fused together. For the meaning of the legislator was evidently
not that the very person, whom the people should first set over
the kingdom, would be led into captivity, but that the government, which the people would establish in connection with the
theocratic constitution, should go into captivity in the person of
one of its administrators.-Although Henystenberg maintains,
in his Egypt and the Books of Mloses (p. 252 transl.), that "the
reason why the king is called new is given in the phrase,'who
knew not Joseph;"' every unbiassed reader must at once perceive,
that the very reverse is the truth, namely that he knew not
Joseph just because he was a new king.
For the history of the Israelites, it is of no importance whatever in what sense the king, who began to oppress them, was a
new king. The question is of more importance, for the determination of contemporaneous events in connexion with the history
of Egypt. And if our explanation be correct, we have a most
important datum in Ex. i. 8, which may serve us as an Ariadnethread in the confused labyrinth of Egyptian history and chronology. But we shall return to this question again. ( Vid. ~ 45. 4).
(5). The TRIBUTARY SERVICE, which the Israelites were forced
to render, consisted chiefly in brick-mcakiny and field-labour~
By the latter we are undoubtedly to understand the severe labour
of watering the land in the more elevated districts (see ~ 15. 2);
and from the former we learn that the Israelites were employed both in the erection of the colossal monuments, and in
the building of cities and fortresses (Ex. i. 11: Pithom and
Raemses, vid. ~ 41. 2).  The preparation of the incalculable




CONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES.           153
number of bricks, which were required, must, no doubt, have
taken up the greatest amount of time, and demanded the greatest
exertion, and therefore this is mentioned instar omniurn.  As
the Egyptians prided themselves, according to Herodotus (i. 108)
and Diodorus (i. 56), on the fact that not a single native was
employed in the erection of their monuments, but that they
were built entirely by captives and slaves, Josephus is probably
right in associating the tributary service of the israelites with
the construction of the pyramids (Ant. ii. 9. 1).-On the manufacture of bricks in Egypt see ~ 22. 2.  It is a memorable
fact, that to all appearance a contemporaneous testimony to this
tributary service of the Israelites is still in existence in a picture
found in the tomb of Rochscere at Thebes. RBosellini, by whom
it was first discovered, has given a copy and description of it in
his great Egyptological work, under the heading: " Explanation
of a picture representing the Hebrews making bricks."  (Vid.
Hengstenbery Egypt and the books of Moses p. 80 transl.).
According to Rosellini's description, which we copy from Hengstenberg's work: "Soome of the labourers are employed in transporting the clay in vessels, some in intermingling it with the
straw; others are taking the bricks out of the form and placing
them in rows; still others, with a piece of wood upon their backs and
ropes on each side, carry away the bricks already burned or dried.
Their dissimilarity to the Egoyptians appears at the first view;
their complexion, physiognomy, and beard, are proofs that we, are
not mistaken in supposing them to be Hebrews. They wear at the
hips the apron, which is common among the Egyptians, and
there is also represented as in use among them a kind of short
trowsers, after the fashion of the Jiiikbesim.  Among the
Hebrews, four Egyptians, very distinguishable by their mien,
figure, and colour, are seen; two of them, one sitting and the
other standing, carry a stick in their hand ready to fall upon
two other Egyptians, who are here represented like the Hebrews,
one of them carrying on his shoulder a vessel of clay, and the
other returning from carrying brick, bringing his empty vessel
for a new load.  The tomb belonged to a high court-officer of
the king, Pochscere, and was made in the time of Thothmes IV.,
the fifth king of the eighteenth dynasty. The question, " how
came this picture in the tomb of Rochscere?" Rosellini answers
as follows: he was the overseer of the public buildings, and




154                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
had, consequently, the charge of all the works undertaken by
the king.  To the question, " how came the representation of
the labours of the Israelites at Thebes?" it is answered: we
need not suppose that the labours were performed in the very
place where they are represented, for Rochscere was overseer of
the royal buildings throughout the land, and what was done
in the circuit of his operations could, wherever performed, be
represented in his tomb at Thebes. It is also not impossible
that the Hebrews went even to Thebes. In Ex. v. 12 it is said,
" that they were scattered abroad throughout all the land of Egypt
to gather straw" (p. 80, 81 transl.). —Wilkinlson has again carefully examined this painting on the spot, and confirmed l   osellini's account. It is true that he disputes the reference to the
Israelites, but on grounds which Henystenberg justly pronounces
inconclusive. As the eighteenth dynasty undoubtedly ruled over
thle whole of Egypt, we may very well imagine that the Israelites
were sent away as far as to Thebes to work, for it was the
interest of their oppressors to distribute them as widely as
possible through the land, and to the present day the Fellahs
are brought in droves from the most distant parts of Egypt,
whenever any great work is going on. This at once removes
WVilkinson's principal objection, that according to the inscription
the bricks were intended for some building in Thebes.  };il7kinson also relies upon the fact that the majority of the workmen
are without any beard.  But this may be explained on the
assumption, which is quite admissible, that most of the Israelites
had adopted this custom either voluntarily, or on compulsion.
And the decidedly Jewish cast of countenance, which even
VTilkinson cannot deny, is a most powerful argument in favour
of Rlosellini's views.
We have already pointed out the important bearing of the
Egyptian oppression and compulsory service upon the sacred
history of the Israelites (~ 1. 7). The importance of this is the
more obvious, since it is unmistakeably implied in the bibtlical
record. In proof of this we refer, not merely to the fact that
the record lays so much stress upon the character of a redeemed
people, which Israel acquired in consequence of their oppression,
but also to the prominence given to it in the announcement made
to Abraham (in Gen. xv. 13).
(6). Josephus (Ant. ii. 9. 2) attributes the mlurderous edicts




CONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES.           155
of the king to a prediction made known to him by one of his
scribes, that a Hebrew boy would inflict great injury upon the
Egyptians.  There is no notice of anything of the kind in our
record. Moreover we do not believe that Josephus found this
in any ancient tradition.  It is most likely an invention of his
own, intended to place the hero of the Hebrew nation upon a
level with Cyrus and others, for the benefit of Gentile readers.Josephzus speaks of the midczives as Egyptian women, evidently
in direct contradiction to the Scripture record, which describes
them as Hebrew midwives. Moreover, it is said that they feared
God, and that God made them houses, and this would hardly
b, said of heathen women. -The midwives defended themselves
before Pharaoh, on the ground that the Hebrew women were
generally delivered without requiring their assistance, and we
are not justified in questioning the truth of their assertion. It
is well known that in warm climates the births are generally
quicker and easier; and we can very well imagine that the
different mode of life adopted by the Hebrew women may have
given them an advantage in this respect even over the wives of
the Egyptians. Still it is expressly stated in ver. 17, that " the
midwives feared God and did not as the king of Egypt cominanded them," but saved many children alive, whom they ought
according to the king's orders to have killed.  Hence their
answer lootks like a subterfuge, which on the strict ground of'
morality must be condemned. They were cnot bound to obey
the king, when he required that which was ungodly, but they
were bound to speak the truth by giving a direct refusal (as in
Acts iv. 20, 21).  But on this standpoint they did not and
could not stand, for such a standpoint had never yet been
reached. Nevertheless their fear of God was genuine, and as
such it was followed by the approbation and blessing of God.
Still what they did fiom fear of God is not on that account to
be confounded with what they did from fcar of Pharaoh.-The
biblical record has preserved the names of two of the midwives,
Shifrah and Pnuah.  It is evident from  the number of the
people and the frequency of the births, that there must have
been others. Whether these two were superintendents of the
whole class, or whether there was some other reason for their
rnames being handed down, it is impossible to determine.




156                 ISRAEL IN EGY~'T.
~ 15. Jacob and his descendants came into Egypt as nomadcs,
So long as they dwelt in Palestine, where they lived as pilgrims
and strangers, they were compelled to adopt this mode of life
by the circumstances in which they were placed. But even there,
whenever it was practicable, they combined agriculture with the
rearing of cattle.   WVhen Isaac dwelt in the land of the
Philistines, he sowed corn there, and reaped the same year a
hundredfold (Gen. xxvi. 12). And even if this is to be regarded
as an exceptional case, it proves that the patriarchs were not
such nomads by nature, that a settled mode of life was intolerable
to them, or that they would rather suffer hunger and destitution,
than take the trouble to cultivate the ground.  it was to be
expected, therefore, that when they came down to Egypt, where
the circumstances were entirely different, they would soon
exchange their wandering habits for a settled mode of life, and
add to the rearing of cattle the cultivation of the sofl.  The
land of Goshen, which embraced the garden-ground of the Nile
on the one hand and the pasture-land of the desert on the other,
provided the means and offered an inducement to both of these
occupations.  The intention of Joseph from the very first was,
undoubtedly, to pave the way for such an improvement in his
brethren's mode of life. He obtained not only the king's consent
to their leading a nomad life with their flocks in the tracts of
pasture-land on the east of the land, but also a grant of certain
fixed hereditary possessions (^.~-) in the best portion of the
country (yU,.,.2 Gen. xlvii. 11, 27). The name iMetab is in itself
a proof that the district assigned them was not merely pasturage,
but contained also some of the fertile soil, which is watered by
the Nile and its branches; and this supposition is confirmed
in many passages by express statements to that effect (~ 1. 5).
The much more remunerative character of agriculture must have
been sufficient to lead the Israelites, if not to prefer agriculture,




CONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES.           157
at least to associate it with the rearing of cattle. For there is
no country in which agriculture is more remunerative than in
Egypt.  No doubt it requires much preliminary labour and
many contrivances, which are not needed elsewhere. But as
the land was given to the Israelites as an hereditary possession,
and they had therefore a guarantee that whatever trouble
they might take in cultivating the land would be for the
benefit of their children and children's children, the difficulties
did not present an insuperable obstacle. There was also another
strong impulse to the adoption of agricultural pursuits, in
the extraordinarily rapid multiplication of the people, which
rendered it necessary that they should search for productive land
in every direction. And lastly, the disgust, excited by nomadshepherds in the minds of the Egyptians, must have contributed to wean the Israelites from their wandering mode of
life. These expectations completely tally with the actual
condition of the Israelites, as we find it incidentally referred to
in different passages of the Pentateuch (1). We meet with no
intimation of life in tents, which is characteristic of nomads.
The Israelites live in houses and cities, and even in the royal
cities (Ex. xii.). They cultivate fishing and gardening (Num.
xi. 5), and water the soil in an artificial manner for the sake of the
crops (Deut. xi. 10) (2). Even the tributary service,to which they
were forced, presupposes such a change in their mode of life as
we have described.  It would hardly have been possible to compel a nomad-race to perform this labour, at least so generally as
Ex. i. 13, 14, and chap. v. describe; for the words of Maillet
(quoted by Heeren, Ideen iiber Aegypten, p. 148) with reference to the nomads of eastern Egypt in the present day, were
undoubtedly quite as applicable then: " they only need, in fact,
to go a day's journey into the desert to ensure themselves
against any kind of retaliation." Lastly, this is attested by the
legislation of Moses, which is framed exclusively for an agricul



158                ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
tural mode of life, and instead of containing the slightest indication of having been intended to bring about a transition from
wandering habits to agricultural pursuits, presupposes that the
change had already completely taken place.  The fact that the
Israelites returned to a nomad life after they had left Egypt,
and continued it during the forty years which were spent in the
desert, of course proves nothing. This was an affliction, the
removal of which was longed for and anticipated as a mark of
the favour of God. The great mass of the nation had become
an agricultural people long before the exodus from Egypt; and
having been accustomed to the enjoyments and fruits of a
settled agricultural life, they were doubly sensible of the privations which their life in the desert necessarily involved (Num.
xi. 5). Still there was one portion of the nation, which seems to
have retained its nomad habits even till the time of the departure from Egypt, viz., the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and
part of the tribe of Manasseh. At any rate, there was a striking
contrast between these two tribes and a half and the rest of the
tribes, when we consider the number of cattle possessed by the
former (Num. xxxii. 1- 4).  Such wealth in cattle leads to
the conclusion that the rearing of cattle was the only industrial
occupation known among them, and this is inconceivable except
in connexion with a nomadic mode of life. We feel justified in
assuming, therefore, that these tribes had dwelt along the
eastern border of the land of Goshen, and that their habits were
to be attributed not to any particular preference for a wandering
life, or any natural disinclination to settled habits, but simply to
the peculiarity of the district assigned them, which was not fitted
for cultivation.
The adoption of Egyptian agriculture was necessarily followed
by a participation in Egqyptian civilization. The peculiar nature of
the agriculture of Egypt encouraged this, requiring, as it did, machinery and contrivances of various kinds, which again gave an




COJNDTTION OF THE ISRAELITES.          159
impulse to arts and manufactures. But their settled life contributed still more to bring about this result. Fixed habitations are
always promoters of industry; they foster both a love of comfort
and a want of the means of enjoying it. Many things, which a
nomad regards as luxuries, become matters of daily and indispensable necessity. But the greatest influence of all must have been
exerted by the fact that the Israelites lived in the same towns,
and sometimes even in the same houses, as the Egyptians.  In
this respect also we find our expectations confirmed by the data
of history. For example, we learn from 1 Chr. iv. 14, 21, 23,
that in some of the families of the tribe of Judah there were carpenters, byssus-weavers, and potters on a very large scale. And
since these are only incidentally alluded to, we may assume that
other trades and arts were carried out to the same extent. From
the work which the people performed in the deserts, we may
estimate the various departments of industry in whvlich they had
been trained, and the perfection they must have reached. What
a variety of arts and handicrafts, and what eminence in both of
these, does the mere erection of the tabernacle presuppose I The
finest and most beautifully woven cloths were used, and the most
accurate knowledge and skill, in the working of precious as well
as common metals, in the grinding and engraving of precious
stones, and in many other pursuits, must have been indispensably
requisite.-So much, at least, we may clearly and certainly discover, that the time spent by Israel in Egypt, the land of highest
culture, had not been lost. They had acquired considerable
knowledge, they had been initiated into the advantages of civilization, and had learned how to apply the culture they received.
Their natural development had been advanced to an incomparably higher stage; the natural foundation had been laid there for
a fresh and more glorious revelation from God, and the natural
pre-requisites had been attained for a new and nobler form of
covenant with God.  The announcement made to Abraham




160                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
(Gen. xv. 14), "they shall come out with great substance," was
thus fulfilled in a much higher sense, than by their coming out
of Egypt with vessels of gold and silver (Ex. xii. 35, 36).
(1). In connexion with what we have said above consult the
complete and searching investigations of Hengstenberg (Beitr. ii.
432 —439), and the remarks of v. Lengerkce (Kenaan i. 369 seq.),
who arrives at the same conclusions.-Beeren has clearly pointed
out, in his Ideen (hist. Werke xiv. 161), how thoroughly Egypt
was adapted by nature to elevate the lower habits of a nomadlife into the superior habits fostered by agricultural pursuits.
He says: —" The objects, which the founders of the Egyptian
state naturally kept in view, were to promote the cultivation of
the soil and to accustom the nomads to settled places of abode.
In doing this they hlad the great advantage, that nature had already performed more for them, than in any other part of the
world. The transition from a nomad —life to agriculture, however
difficult of explanation it may generally be, was at any rate nowhere easier than in Egypt, where field-labour required scarcely
any exertion, and nearly all that had to be done was to scatter
the seed and reap the harvest."  Robinson calls attention to the
fact, that even now the nomads, who settle in Egypt, are
almost involuntarily changed into farmers (Palestine i. 77).
It is a very remarkable fact that there is not the slightest
allusion to camels in any part of the history of Israel in Egypt
and the desert, whereas according to Genesis they formed part
of the cattle possessed by the patriarchs in Palestine.  (See
Ritter Erdkunde xiv. 739, and xiii. 701. 704).
(2). However easy the cultivation of the soil may be in the lower
districts of the Nile-country, where the river overflows the land,
and both waters and manures it without any interference on
the part of man; in the higher ground there are peculiar difficulties to be overcome.  The water must be raised by artificial
means, before the land can be irrigated.  That the Israelites
were accustomed to make use of these means is apparent from
Deut. xi. 10: " for the land, whither thou goest in to possess it,
is not as the land of Egypt, from whence ye came out, where
thou sowedst thy seed, and wateredst it with thy feet, as a garden
of herbs." Philo gives a more minute description of the process
here referred to (in his de confusione ling'uarum T. i. p. 410 ed.




CONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES.             6iL
Mangey):' the same may be said of the purp2ing-wheel (6XtI).
There are several steps (/gaOB/oi) in it, by treading on which the
wheel is turned, and the water raised for the irrigation of the
land.  But in order that the man may not fall, he holds by his
hands to some fixed object connected with the machinery, so that
the whole body is suspended.  Thus, instead of the hands he
uses the feet, and instead of the feet the hands; for he stands
with the hands, with which we are accustomed to work, and
works with the feet, with which we are acustomed to stand."
According to Diodorus Siculus (1. i. c. 34) this machine (which
-was called cGXLta, i.e., a snail with a twisted shell, on account
of its shape) was invented by Archimedes; but of course there is
no ground for such an assertion, as Archimedes was the mythical
centre of all mechanical inventions. The miners in Spain made use
of similar machines for pumping water out of the pits.  Of these
Diodorus gives a detailed description in Book v. chap. 37: " When
water flows in, it is pumped out with the so-called Egyptian Kochlia. With this they draw it out in a continuous stream till the
pit is dry.  By means of this extremely scientific contrivance an
immense mass of water is pumped up with very little exertion, and
all the water that may have come into the mine is easily raised
from  the bottomn to the top."  Pumping-wheels are still used in
Egypt to water the higher ground, though they are constructed
somewhat differently fronm those described by Pilto and Dioclorus
(see Niebuhr Reise-beschr. 1. 148, and Abbild. Taf. 15). Robinson says (i. 541): " The water-wheel, Sdkieh, is usually turned by
an ox, and raises the water by means of jars fastened to a circular
or endless rope, which always hangs over the wheel." Hengstezberg (Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 221) hesitates to apply
the words of Deut. xi. 10 to the watering machine, because there is
no representation of' such a machine in any of the sculptures, and
therefore it is most probably of later origin.  And as there are
representations, on the other hand, upon the monuments of
persons carrying water, he thinks it more advisable to explain
the passage as referring to this occupation, seeing that in the
carrying of water " the feet have the most to do and to bear."'We must refuse our support to this interpretation, for it would
hardly occur to any one to describe such a method of watering, as
watering with the foot. The omission of the machine from the
imonuments may be accidental.
VOL, IT                                    L




[1[6J:2              iSRAEL IN EGYPT.
(3). In proportion as the Israelites laid aside their wandenring
habits, and adopted the civilized customs of the Egyptians, the
latter ceased to regard them with that abhorrence which they
had felt towaryds them as nomads.  Thus it came to pass that
the Israelites were allowed to live in Egyptian towns, and even
in the same houses with the native Egyptians (Ex. iii. 22). As
the Israelites possessed houses of their own (Ex. xii. 4-7), it
may sometimes have happened that Egyptians lodged in their
houses. But Henygstenbercy seems to lay too much stress upon
the expression in Exodus iii. 22: " Every woman shall ask of
her neighbour. and of eer thal-t soj'ou.neth ~i h]er house (myFiun,2), vessels of silver and vessels of gold," when he concludes
from this passage, that Egyptians of great wealth and eminence
lodged with the Israelites (p. 434).  Persons who had a superfluity of gold and silver ornaments were most likely to have
houses of their own.  " Her house" need not be understood as
meaning a house of which she was the owner; the house may
have belonged to another, whilst she was the tenant at the time.
-Closely as the Israelites approximated to the Egyptians, and
greatly as their mode of life was changed in consequence, the
difference of religion and of nationality always raised a sufficient
barrier between them to prevent intermarriages.  Yet there are
cases on record in which this barrier was broken through, and
that in a most striking manner.  Thus, e.y., according to 1 Chr.
iv. 18, a daughter of Pharaoh, named Bith7icJh, was married to
a man of the tribe of Judah, named Merec.  But her name
Bithjalh, which is not only not Egyptian, but is a Hebrew word
formed from the name of the God of Israel, must have been
received at the time of her marriage, and is a sufficient proof
that this unusual step was attended by the relinquishment of her
Egyptian nationality and religion. She may possibly have been
an Egyptian Ruth, with faith as strong as that which dictated
the words, " Thy God shall be my God, and thy people my
people."
~ 16. The Israelites entered Egypt as a single family, whose
unity was represented by the one common father.  As their
numbers increased, it was both natural and necessary that the
entire body of the people should be arranged in classes.  From




CONDITION OF TIHE ISRAELITES.             1 63
the independent manner in which the Pharaohs allowed the
Israelitish community to develope itself, there was no necessity
for this classification to be made according to the artificial division into castes required by the principle of the Egyptian state;
on the contrary, full liberty was granted for the adoption of a
strictly Hebrew classification.  This was a purely natural one,
founded upon the idea of a family.  It was merely an expansion
of the family ties whlich  existed already.  The connexion was
closer or more distant, just according to the nearness or distance
of the relationship.  From the patriarchal unity there first proceeded a plurality of tribes (hSti   or D:.DA, also n..),
of which the sons of Jacob were the founders.  The increase
proceeded with such regularity and rapidity, that in the next
generation the tribes began to divide themselves into different
clans (Gescldechtedr, Fn~rn. a).  As a general rule the grandsons
of Jacob are to be regarded as the founders of these liishcpachoth;
but in reality new Mlishpach7oth continued to be formed for several
generations.  This is evident from Num. xxvi.  The number of
Jirishyachoth  at that time was about sixty, and their numerical
strength varied from four to sixteen thousand men who were
capable of bearing arms.  Such numbers as these would lead us
to expect the principle of natural classification to be carried out
beyond the liishpachoth.  And this was really the case.  The
ltishpachoth were divided intofacmiles or houses (tn.2).    This
was the smallest division of the tribe, for the next in order
were the.~,  i.e., individual men, with their wives and'T 
children.  The fourfold division is most clearly and fully exhibited in Josh. vii. 14, 17, 18. It is true that reference is
there made to the state of things which existed in the time of
Joshua; but we are perfectly justified in assuming that the same
arrangement existed both in the Mosaic and the pre-Mosaic times,
for there were the same elements for the division of the tribes in
L2




l64                  ISRAE~L I:N EGYPTi.
the days of Moses, though they may not be so clearly described;
and there is not the slightest intimation anywhere, that Moses
made any alterations, or introduced any fresh organisation in
this respect.  On the contrary, the existence of a complete
and final classification of the tribes is always presupposed.  At
the head of the tribes, and sections of the tribes, there were
_princes and heads, who occupied their position by right of primogeniture. They represented the unity of the tribe, or of the
section, and in that capacity had undoubtedly corresponding
magisterial rights and duties. The common name for these
chiefs of every grade was r,~-r~z  thr   heads of fathers'
houses (generally written elliptically;:!- jt-).    Those of
them who stood at the head of a whole tribe were called princes,
0Nj'w] (pni 9t s,  ~'T~  s:); see Num. i. 4, 16.  So
far as the command of the tribes was in their hands, Israel was
under a federal, aristocratic.government.  The elders (~2~.)
are mentioned in connexion with the heads of the tribes, and are
much more frequently referred to than the latter. There is not the
slightest appearance anywhere of their being identical with the
heads of the tribes, of either the higher or lower grades; on the con-r
trary they are expressly referred to as distinct from these (Deut.
xxix. 9). Their name may have lost its strictly literal signification, but it always indicated that they were the 6lite, of those
who were distinguished for their age, their experience, and the
general esteem in which they were held.  Hence, in addition to
the hereditary nobility of the heads of tribes, we find in these
men a personal nobility, or nobility of merit belonging to the
people. And whilst the former were nobles by birth, the latter
were elevated to their rank and official standing on account of
their wisdom, prudence, and experience, and were no doubt
appointed by a free popular election. They always appear as the
representatives of the people (Ex. iii. 16, 18, iv. 29, xii. 21,




CONDITION' OF THE ISRAELI!'TES.        1 61)
xvii., 6, xviii. 12, xix. 7, xxiv. 1, 9, 14, &c.).  Whenever
any communication had to be made to the people generally, or
it was necessary that they should be represented, the elders were
always convened.  Hence they formed, to a certain extent, a democratic element in the otherwise aristocratic constitution. For
want of farther information, it is impossible to give an accurate
description of the nature of their office. In addition to their duties
as representatives of the people, they seem to have possessed a
peculiar kind of judicial authority.  They were very numerous,
for Moses appointed seventy of them as a council, to assist him
in the general superintendence of the nation (Num. xi. 16).
Probably every famnilia in the more general sense (as the smallest
subdivision of the tribes), or at least every yens (J3lislhachah)
had its own council of elders, who were chosen from the wisest
and most esteemed of the fathers of a family (M:iZ). —Under
the influence of Egyptian customs a new office was created, viz.
that of Scribe (="Ien; LXX. ypa/aaTc'es; Luther, Amtletde).
There was no country of the ancient world in which so much
writing was done as in Egypt.  For every trifling occurrence of
public and private life, pen and ink, pencil or chisel, were close
at hand, and everything, however unimportant, was written
down. As soon as the Israelites began to adopt the civilized
customs of Egypt, they felt the want of written documents, and
men were quickly discovered to meet the want.  These men
acquired an official character, which gave authority to what
they wrote.  It is probable that one of their duties was to draw
up the genealogical tables.  When the Egyptian oppression
comlnencecd, and the people were required to render tributary
service, the Israelitish Shoterim were commissioned by the government to distribute the labour, and were held responsible
for its performance (Ex. v. 10, 14).
(I). According to Josh vii. 14, 17, 18, the whole body of
tlhe people were divided into tribes, the tribes into Ml-tshpacchoth,




-163(;                ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
the Mishpachoth into Bottim, and the Bottin into Gebarirm.
For the reason already assigned, we consider ourselves justified
in assuming that this classification existed in the Mosaic and
pre-Mosaic times, though the last two subdivisions are not
mentioned in the Pentateuch, where the people are always
numbered and classed according to tribes and MIishpachoth.  In
this opinion we differ from nearly every modern commentator,
the general opinion being that the god  FS.  (father's houses)
correspond to the =/ln1 (houses) of the book of Joshua, whereas we regard the former as a designation of the leading tribes.
In order to get at the idea of Beth-aboth, we start from the
meaning of the word Aboth.  Two explanations of this are possible.  It may either denote the fathers, who were still alive,those who had become fathers by begetting children, in contradistinction to the unmarried men, —or it may refer to the forefathers (iajolres), as distinguished from the existing generation.  It appears to us, that there can be no great difficulty in
deciding which of these two are meant.  There are innumerable
passages in the Pentateuch, as well as in the other books of the
Old Testament, in which the term Aboth occurs with the meaning
lajores; and, so far as we know, there is not a single instance
in which it is used, without further explanation, with the meaning
husbands, or fathers of a family.  The usage of the language
had so thoroughly associated the meaning  lajores with the
plural of the word ad, that it was necessary to select another
word, if it was to be employed with a different signification;
and thus we find the word Eq. substituted in the book of
Joshua.
If, then, the term Aboth, whenever it occurs, and therefore in
the compound word Beth-aboth, denotes, not the fathers then
living, but their ancestors and forefathers; it certainly follows,
that a Beth-aboth must be an association comprising all the families and individuals, descended firom the Aboth referred to at any
particular time.  But the question then arises, how far back the
ternm Aboth extends, for this must be determined before we ci.;m
tell whether a Beth-aboth was one of the earlier or later divisions, in other words, whether it was a fcnmilia (a Fe.v in tle'
sense of Josh. vii. 14) a  yens (- Mishllachahl), or lastlr a tribls
i(,....).    If we enquirel inlto tile general ~lrs(Ac we 1,',ir ta l -lnt as




CDIONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES.           1 67
a rule the Aboth denoted the earliest ancestors of the people;
and therefore a Beth-aboth was most probably one of the earliest
of the divisions of the people, viz. a tribe. This conjecture of
ours is raised into a certainty, when we examine the following
passages:
1. Num. i. 4, 16. Here the same persons are mentioned singly
in ver. 4, as " every one head of the house of his fathers," and
are classed together in v. 16, as "princes of the tribes of their
fathers," from which it necessarily follows, that " the house of the
fathers" and " the tribe of the fathers" were one and the same,
i.e. that a Beth-aboth was one of the tribes.
2. Num. i. 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, &c. These passages are just
as conclusive as the former.  The census of the twelve tribes
is here described, and the same formula is repeated in the case
of every tribe; viz. "' of the children of (Judah, &c.) their
generations were according to their families, according  to the
house of their fathers, according to tile number of their names "
so many.  The evidence in favour of' our interpretation is to be
found here in the constant recurrence, without any exception,
of the singular Beth-aboth, house of the fathers (never Botteaboth), whereas the Jiish)pachoth, families, are always in the
plural.  If the Beth-aboth. were a subdivision of a Mishpachah,
it would necessarily be always used in the plural also.  We see,
therefore, that the plurality of' the Misalpachoth passed into the
unity of a Beth-eboth, and hence that the JAishpachoth must
have been subclivisions of a Bet.h-both, in other words, that a
Beth-aboth, a house of the fathers, must have been a tribe.  It
is true that Gesenzts and many other expositors answer the
argument, founded upon the use of the singular, by saying
without explanation that Beth,-aboth is a plural, (equivalent to
Ad Amp): " quae pluralis formandi ratio in noiminibus com.positis apud Syros usitatior est."   But it is not proved, and
cannot be proved, that this formcoandi ratio was a usitata in
Hebrew; least of all can (-,N,-an: be adduced to establishl
it, since this always makes good sense, when interpreted as
a singular in its simplest and most natural meaning.  Moreov:rl
Beth-ab has been proved to meakn som,.ething entirely dci-fierelt
from Beth-aboth.
3  HlNu. iii. 1, s.  i': os?pecli.ar  li-ght, upon  thlis
(lesti on.  Ia ve)r.. n we - rea,    n Xiumbrl tit|I. cliltlirell  of Le vi




168                   ISRAElL IN EGYP1'T.
according to the house of their fathers, according to theirn
JIaishpcehoth."  This is done with the following result'  (1),
"according to the house of their fathers, " the children of Levi
are Gershon, Kehath, Merari" (ver. 17); these three therefore
form the Beth-aboth of the children of Levi;  (2) accordingZ
to themir Mlis1pachoth, the names of the sons of Gershon, Kohath,
and IMerari are given, as the founders of the B/ ishpacchoth of
the tribe of Levi (ver. 18, 20).   The enumeration concludes
with the words " these are the Alish2pcachoth of Levi according
to the house of their fathers."   Thus the Beth-abothl of the
children of Levi included the whole of the tribe of Levi, and
the Aboth were Gershon, Kehath and Merari.  The Beth-aboth
of the children of Levi was divided into three sections, each of
which was called a Beth-cob, and every Beth-acb was subdivided
into a certain number of ifishpcchoth.  T'his is indisputably
proved by the following passages: ver. 24: " and the prince of
the Beth-ab of the Gershonites shall be Eliasaph;" ver. 30:
"and the prince of the Beth-ab of the families of the Kehathites shall be Elizaphan;" ver. 35: " and the prince of the
Beth-ab of the fallilies of Maerari shall be Zuriel;" ver. 32:
" and the prince of the princes of Levi shall be Eleazar."-1Here
then we'have an authoritative explanation of the difference
between Beth-,ab and Beth-aboth.  The expression A both, as
indicative of the point from which the division of the tribes
started, carries us back to the sons of the twelve patriarchs
in other words, only such of the descendants of Jacob, as were
the founders of the nation in the land of Egypt, and are expressly mentioned as such in Gen, xl-vi., were 4 both (fathers)
Caw''oX'i/. —The following was the classification of the tribe
of Levi: the tribe, or Beth-aboth, was divided into as many
houses (Beth-cab) as tile iparia.'rch (Levi) had sons; aid every
Beth-ab was then subdivided into single lfishrtacehoth according
to the number of the patriarch's ygrandzcsozs.
In the case of the other tribes, indeed, the classification  was
not so completely carried out, or at any ratfe was not so perfectly
maintained.  For instance they had no Beth-ab between the
Beth-acboth, and the ]fiss2zachoth.  At least, in the two numnberings described in Nlum. i. 20 sqq. and Num. xxvi. the people
are merely classified under these two heads.  In the second
census (Num. xxvi.) the different J]isbhachloth are mentioned by




CONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES.            169
name.  By far the greater number of these derive their name and
their origin from the sons of the twelve (or rather, since the
adoption of Joseph's sons, thirteen) patriarchs, very few of them
from their grandsons or great grandsons. The latter are always
co-ordinate with the rest, not subordinate to them. Hence there
was no room  for the name Beth-ab.  The tribe of Levi formed
the only exception in this respect.  The intermediate class,
Beth-ab, which was omitted in all the other tribes, was restored
in the case of this tribe (probably by 2Moses, Num. iii.), and, as
this chapter most clearly shows, it was done for the purpose of
securing regularity in the order of encampment, and a better
distribution of their duties in the sanctuary.
4. We have thus discovered fromn Num. iii., that the name
A botlh (in its highest sense) only reached as far back as the
grandsons of Jacob, i.e. to those who went down with Jacob
to Egypt, and there became the founders of the nation. A Bethab was a division of the people, springing from one inL7dvicdal
among these Aboth; a Beth-aboth was a division of the people,
in the formation of which several A both were concerned. Thus
a BetAh-aboth included several Beth-abs.  In this manner Bethaboth became fixed as the name of a tribe.  But as the sons of
Jacob and Jacob himself were A both, and not merely his grandsons (see Gen. xlvi.), Beth-abothl may have been employed in a
wider sense, to denote the house of the (12) sons of Jacob, i.e.
all the descendants of Jacob, and may thus have been equivalent
to the congregation.  It occurs in this sense in Ex. vi. 14.  A
genealogical section is there i-ntroduced by the heading: "' these
be the heads of Beth-Albotham. "  It then proceeds: "the sons
of Reuben are Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi.  These be
the lIislpactcioth of  Reuben."  The children of Simeon and
Levi are then named in the salme way.  The genealogy ends
with Levi, as the author was merely writing about Levi, and
there was therefore no reason for carrying it farther. The heads
(.i.e. the founders, originators) of the Beth-aboth were Reuben,
Simeon, Levi.  Hence the Beth-aboth, here referred to, was
formed by a combination of the sons of Ja~cob.-At all events
this passage most decidedly proves, that a Betth-aboth was not
a section of a 3MishzCpaCfah.
5. If then, as Ex. vi. 14 shows, the expression Beth-aboth
m~a. be ulsed to designate a combination o)f all the tribes, it




170                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT'.
follows that Beth-ab (the house of one of the fathers referred
to above) may also be used for a tribe.  And, undoubtedly, it
is so used in Num. xvii. 2: "take of the children of Israel.
twelve rods, one rod'for each Beth-ab, of all their princes
according to Beth-ctbotham,   twelve rods."-Beth-abothcam  is
probably used here, as in Ex. vi. 14, to denote the twelvemembered unity of the whole people; and there can be no
possible doubt that Beth-ab is to be regarded as a designation
of each one of the twelve tribes.
From the passage referred to it is evident, that although the
meaning of the words Bethz-ab and Betl-aboth is not sharply
defined or invariably the same, they never can be explained as
denoting subdivisions of a 7Jishpachah, that, on the contrary,
the lishpaCchah must be a subdivision of the Betlh-ab and Bethaboth.  This is so certain and so plain, that it is almost inexplicable, how so many excellent commentators can have overlooked their proper relation.  It does admit of explanation,
however, seeing that there are many passages, which ac ppear to
favour the opposite view. The first thing, which strikes us as at
variance with our conclusion, is the fact that very frequently a
number of heads of Beth-aboth (or still more frequently by
ellipsis heads of A both) are mentioned, and that evidently within
the limits of a single tribe, so that it seems necessary to render the
Beth-aboth, as a plural, indicating the sub-divisions of the tribes
and Jlishlcpachoth.  When, for example, the _Jiishpacchah of the
Belaites is spoken of in I Chr. vii. 7, as contai-inlg five heads of'
Beth-aboth, and in 1 Chr. vii. 40 a large number of descendants of Asher are called heads of Beth-aboth; when again the
Zlishpachah of the Gileadites is referred to in Num. xxxvi. 1
as containing a plurality of heads of Al both, and the same occurs
in many other passages; it appears that we are justified in assuming, or rather actually compelled to assume, that the term
Beth-aboth is used to describe a number of minor divisions,
subordinate to the J1lishpacchah. Yet the whole difficulty vanishes
before the simple observation, that tribe-leaders (Rashe-Bethaboth) were not necessarily heads of the tribe, but might also
be heads in the tribe, that is, not those who presided over the
whole tribe, but over certain of its sub-divisions.  The RaesheBeth-aboth, or, in the abbreviated form,  actshe-aboth, were all
tholse wrho were by birth the leaders of the people within tl!e
2




C'ONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES.             171
limits of a Beth-aboth, whether they stood at the head of an
entire tribe, of a gens, or of a family in the less restricted sense.
This is so clear and indisputable, that we scarcely think it necessary to bring forward analogous cases in proof' of it.  Let it
suffice, therefore, to point out the expression, princes of the congregation, which so fiequently-occurs in the Pentateuch, and by
which we are to understand not princes over the entire cormmunity, but princes over particular sections of the community.
In the foregoing remarks we have shown, that there are a
number of passages, in which the meaning is so clear that we
are necessarily forced to the conclusion, that the term Bethaboth, is the name of a whole tribe, if not of the entire community.  In all the other passages, in which the expression occurs,
it may easily be so explained as to admit of this meaning.  The
most likely passage to create a difficulty is Ex. xii. 3: " speak
ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, in the tenth day
of this month, they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for a house."  But I do
not see why t'beth-aboth should not be rendered Kca-ra bvXriv.
At any rate so much is certain, that the passage does not compel
us to adopt our opponents' explanation of Beth-abotl,.
There is only one passage in which we have been unable to
see our way clear, to the removal of every difficulty.  We refir
to 1 Chr. xxiii. 11.  In this passage it is said of the two grandsons of the Levite Gershon: "they had not imany sons, therefore they were,2  F~, in one reckoning."  The passage is
apparently all the more important, as treating of the period,
in which, according to the views of our opponents, the "fathers' houses" began to be formed.  But if the Beth-ab in this
passage is to be regarded as a fixed genealogical term, in the
sense of a sub-division of the Mishpachah, there is evidently an
undisguised and irreconcileable discrepancy between thle statement here made and Nuim. iii. 24, where, as we saw above,
Gershon himself is the founder of a Beth-cab, and the Jis?/pachoth subordinate to it are founded by his sons, whilst here the
grandson of Gershon lays the foundation of a Beth-ab, as a
minor section of a Jfis17pac.cah. Witi.h such a discrepancy before
us, we should decidedly feel bound to give the preference to tihe
authentic, and at all events more trustworthy account in the
l'entateiuch, a.ntd to leave ithe statemlent,  ill te ('-Irouicles alocc.




'17;2                  ISRAEl, IN EtGYPT,
Great stress is,laid by our opponents upon the fact that we
only meet with the words Beth-ab and Beth-aboth (never Botte
A b or Botte A both), as justifying, if not necessitating the conclusion, that the latter is the plural of the former (Beth A both
for Botte A b). But so long as not a single example can be adduced from the whole of the early Hebrew thesaurus of a plural
so formed in the case of a compound word, whereas in every case
the nomen regens, as the more important of the two, naturally takes
the plural form, I adhere to my opinion that Beth-aboth can
only mean " house of the fathers," not'" houses of the father,"
especially as the former meaning, as I have shown, is admissible
in every passage in which the word occurs.  It has been already
apparent from Num. i. 16, compared with ver. 4, that the plural
aboth is not a dependent word, governed by the nomen regens.
In ver. 4 the plural Nesi'e ]iattloth A bothacnz is substituted for the
singular Rosh-t'beth A botoham.  If, then, Beth-a both were used
in ver. 4 for Botte A b, we should necessarily find  iliattoth-ab
in ver. 16.  But it is just this passage, which apparently proves,
that the plural forms Botte-ab, and Botte-aboth were intentionally avoided, and that, wherever the context required a plural,
some other form was selected in preference to Botte.  It is impossible to decide with certainty, what gave rise to this wish to
avoid using the forms Botte-ctb and Botte-aboth,-it probably
arose from  the fact that familiae was regarded as the fixed
meaning of Bottlm (as Josh. vii. clearly sh-ows).
~ 17. All divine revelation, both direct and indirect, byprophetic discourse and visions, as well as by the words, and acts,
and appearances of God himself, had ceased since the days of
Jacob.  At least we cannot find the slightest trace of its con.tinuance.  It was not till the end of their stay in Egypt, that
the Israelites began to receive it again, as a preparation foI their
entrance upon a fresh and more advanced stage in their historly (1).
Even the birth of Moses, the hero of God, and the greatest of all
the heroes of the Old Testament, was not attended by any such
divine manifestation, as we should expect from other analogous
cases. I The reason of this interruption of divine revelation for 400: We take the liberty, in opposition to the nmythical theology, of calling
attention to this omission as a fresh argument against the mythical theory.




cONI)TION OF THE ISRAELITES.           173
years, appears to us to have been that the peculiar end to be
answered by the sojourn in Egypt, was one which could be attained by purely natural means. When once the grace, which
worked in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had overcome the natural curse of barrenness which rested upon this family, the growth
of the nation could be effected by the simple process of nature,
which merely required the general superintendence of divine
providence for its successful results. And so far as the training of
Israel as a cultivated nation was concerned, Egypt was to be its
tutor.  In this no special assistance from God was required. It
is true that the civilization of Egypt, in which Israel was to participate, was thoroughly impregnated with the worship of nature,
which Israel was to avoid; b-ut it was not impossible to take
the one without the other. In the religious consciousness which
they had inherited from the fathers, in the recollection of the
revelations and promises which they had received, and in the
consequent hope of a coming day, when their independence as a
nation would be secured, the Israelites were furnished with safe
and powerful re-agents, by which to test and separate all that
was ungodly in the custonis of Egypt. —We have no direct information with regard to the wo0rship of the Israelites during their
stay in Egypt, but there are incidental allusions from  which
many things may be inferred.  We may lay it down as a 1priori
certain that they were not entirely without forms of worship;
for where was there ever a nation of antiquity which did not
stand in an acknowledged relation to the Deity, and did not express that relation in some mode of worship? The only question that can arise is whether, and to what extent, the Israelites
adhered to the mode they had inherited fromn their fathers, or
adopted the ceremonies of Egypt.  From the vivid recollections
of the history of the fathers, which were universally preserved in
the consciousness of the people, as we may infer from the elabo.rate description of that history contained in the book of Genesis,




174                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
we should be led to imagine that they remained true to the
forms of worship inherited from the patriarchs.  But the comparative poverty of the patriarchal forms, when compared with
the gorgeousness and variety of the ceremonies of Egypt, with
which they came into such close contact, would also lead us to
expect that the latter exerted a constantly increasing influence
upon the former.  There are two ways in which the Israelitish
forms of worship may have been enriched by elements of Egyptian origin. No harm could result, so long as they adopted only
forms and symbols in harmony with the religious views which
they had inherited from their fathers, i.e., such as were adapted
to give a more fitting expression to those views, to display them
in richer and more various ways, without destroying or in any
way detracting from  their peculiar and distinctive (theistic)
character.  This, in fact, was one of the services to be performed
by Egypt for the chosen people of God. The history of the giving
of the law proves that their worship must have been so enriched,
and that in no slight degree. How many religious customs,
symbols, and institutions are there referred to as familiarly
known, the relation of which to the ceremonies of the Egyptian
worship cannot be disputed (e.g. the Urim and Thummim).
With an impartiality, which presupposed that these forms and
symbols were already current among the people, the lawgiver
did not stop to give any detailed description of them, whilst
others, of which this could not be assumed, were described by
him in the most minute manner, one might almost say with
trivial carefulness. All that the law had to do, in such cases as
these, was when necessary to improve, legalise, and regulate
what had been already adopted, and to assign to each its proper
place in the whole system of religious symbolism, of which it was
to form a part. But there was another way in which the worship
might have been enriched, and which would not have been so
harmless. The Israelites might have adopted religious forms and




CONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES.            175
symbols together with their heathen signification, or, what is the
same thing, have adopted such forms as were a lriori unfitted to
serve as vehicles for theistic ideas and views, on account of their
having been created for and adapted to purely heathen notions.
In such a case, even if the discordant theistic idea had been
forced into association with the form, the latter would naturally
and inevitably have turned it into a heathen idea (an example
of this was the worship of God under the image of a calf, Ex.
xxxii.) The worship of nature possessed a magic power, and
presented irresistible attractions to the minds of men in the
ancient world.  Against these, it is true, such of the Israelites
as were spiritually minded were protected by the religious inheritance, bequeathed by the fathers, and by their own promises
and hopes; but they were just as seductive to carnally minded
Israelites as to any other people.  Hence from the power possessed by the worship of nature in those days, it was to be feared
from the very first, that the lawful adoption of Egyptian forms
and symbols would not be attended by so strict a process of
sifting and refining, as would be requisite to prevent their being
guilty of mixing up different religions in a false and ungodly
manner.  How much reason there was for such an apprehension
is proved by their history, to a far greater extent, perhaps, than
we should expect.  Ezekiel (chap. xx. 5-8, cf. xxiii. 3) complains that Israel defiled itself with the idols of Egypt in the
days of its youth. So also does Joshua in chap. xxiv. 14. And
in the making of the golden calf in the desert (Ex. xxxii.), we
have an example and a proof of the extent to which this false
syncretism had taken root and spread among the people. Again
the constantly recurring prohibitions of nature-worship, and of
the ceremonies associated with it, on which it was thought
necessary to lay such frequent stress in the law, presuppose existing indications of a strong tendency to such worship. Thus
from Leviticus xvii. 7, we perceive that the Egyptian goat



176                   ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
worship,' especially, had found great favour with the people.
We cannot suppose that the people intended by this an express
denial by the God of their fathers, or were conscious that it involved an apostasy from their fathers' religion.  But the precepts
of the law and the discipline of history were required to open
their eyes to the dangers of that abyss, into which they were
ready to plunge.  When we enquire for proofs of the actual
employment of forms of worship, which had already been known
a~nd adopted by the fathers, our attention is especially directed
to circumcision, sacrifice, and the Sabbath.  With regard to
circumncision, it is evident froml Exodus iv. 24-26 (vid. ~ 21.
3), that this token of the covenant never lost its validity or fell
into disuse, and in Josh. v. 5 it is expressly said, that all the
people who came out of Egypt had been circumcised.  We
might think ourselves justified in inferring from Ex. viii. 2528, that the offering of sacrifice had been entirely discontinued
during their stay in Egypt, from a regard to the Egyptians, to
whom  the Israelitish mode of sacrifice was an abomination.
But there is a reference in this passage to a particularly solemn
festival, in which the whole community was to take part, and
which would therefore necessarily attract universal attention.
Hence it could not but appear unadvisable to celebrate such a
festival within the limits of the Egyptian territory (~ 29. 3).
But it does not follow from this, that it was impossible to offer
sacrifices within the walls of private houses, without attracting
attention or assuming the character of a demonstration, and
therefore without any hindrance or fear of disturbance. At any
rate this passage proves, that the necessity for sacrificial worship
had not lost its hold on the religious consciousness of the people,
and also that that mode of sacrifice, which had been inherited from
the fathers, and was an abomination to the Egyptians, was still
1 The English version is: " They shall offer no more their sacrifices unto
devils." But the word used here is the ordinary Hebrew word for a buck,
or he-goat. —(Tr.)




CONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES.            177
in force, so that in this respect at least, the Israelites had faithfully preserved the religious peculiarities, which distinguished
them  from the Egyptians.  WVe find no trace of any special
order of priests. The existence of such an order cannot be
inferred from Ex. xix. 22 any more than from 1 Sam. ii. 27;
for at Sinai the elders evidently officiated as priests (ver. 7), and
the second passage says nothing about the tribe of Levi having
held the priesthood in Egypt. If sacrifices were offered, there
can be no doubt that the fathers or heads of the families officiated,
as in the time of the patriarchs, unless the sacrifice was offered
for the whole nation, when the representatives of the nation, i.e.,
the elders, would officiate.  With regard to the Sabbath, not
only is the mode of its celebration doubtful, but there is reason
to question its existence even during the patriarchal age (~ 7.
2), and neither Ex. xvi. 22 seq. nor Ex. xx. 8 furnishes any
certain information with reference to the practice in Egypt. We
may safely assume, however, that the Egyptian taskmasters (Ex.
v. 13, 14) would pay no attention to any Sabbatical institution
that might be in existence.
(1). It has been argued from 1 Sam. ii. 27, that there was
not an interruption of divine revelation during the stay in
Egypt.  But the argument is unsound.  The meaning of the
words: " I plainly appeared unto the house of thy father, when
they were in Egypt in Pharaoh's house," &c., is fully exhausted,
if we suppose them to refer to the last year of the sojourn of the
Israelites there.-At the same time there is a strong proof, that
the religious consciousness was kept alive in the hearts of the
people, in the fact that in so many of the proper names which
were given during that period (Num. iii.), the name of God is
found as one of the component parts.
~ 18  (1 Chr. vii. 20-24).-There is no account in the
Pentateuch of any particular events, which may have happened
to individual tribes during the first centuries of these 430 years.
VOL. II.                                    M




178                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
But the passage, cited above, contains some data of a most
remarkable kind, from which, if our explanation be the correct
one, we learn that some of the Israelites began to think of
returning to Palestine at a very early period, and attempted
to carry out their intentions by their own power.  One portion
of the tribe of Ephraim returned and settled in the southern
highlands of Palestine, even during the lifetime of Ephraim
himself.  From these settlements they made predatory incursions into the plain of Phifistia, in which, however, they suffered
such severe losses that the whole of their'father's house was thrown
into the deepest sorrow. This repulse probably weakened them so
much that the quixotic undertaking had to be relinquished.An enterprise of a similar character is referred to in 1 Chr. iv.
22, where some of the descendants of Judah are said to have ruled
over JIoab.  The writer of the Chronicles refers to the Cv.nT
~n.~./_, that is, to the ancient accounts belonging to a very
remote period.  On the relation of the Israelites to the Hyksosdynasty see ~ 34 sqq.
(1). In 1 Chr. vii. 21 there are almost as many enigmas as
words. The preceding verse contains a genealogy of Ephraim car —
ried down to the seventh generation: "The sons of Ephraim are
Shlthelah, and his son Bered, and his son Tahath, and his son
Eladah, and his son Zabad, and his son Shuthelah, and Ezer and
Elead."  Then follows in ver. 21  "And the men of Gath, who
were born in thle land, slew themi, for they had gone down to take
their cattle; (ver. 22) and their father Ephraim mourned many
days, and his brethren came to comfort him.  (Ver. 23) And he
went in to his wife, and she conceived and bare a son, and called
him B'riah, for it went evil with his house.  (Ver. 24) And his
daughter Sherah built lower and upper Beth-horon and Uzzensherah."
The first thing that is doubtful is the period here referred to.
Ewald (i. 490) places it before the migration into Egypt. As
Ecwald thinks he has a right to construct history at his pleasure
with oracular authority, it does not of course trouble him in the




CONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES.            179
least, that, according to the book of Genesis, Ephraim was born in
Egypt. Lenygerke (i. 355) and Bertheau (Chronik. p. 83) on the
other hand assign it to the period immediately subsequent to
Moses, and arbitrarily identify the Beriah in chap. vii. 23 with the
Benjamite Beriah in chap. viii. 13.  Moreover, in reply to the
question: " How are we to dispose of the father Ephraim, who
mourns for the loss of his sons?" Bertheau says, we shall be
obliged to regard Ephraim as meaning the tribe, which mourned
for the calamity that had happened to two of its sons, i.e., to
two divisions of the tribe."  Good, we reply, but what are we to
understand, then, by the Ephraimn, who aft-er this calamity goes
in to his wife and begets a son named Beriah?  Does this mean
the whole of the tribe? As we cannot possibly think of any
other Ephraim  of later date, the account in the Chronicles
brings us at the latest to the commencement of the second
century of the sojourn in Egypt. But this does not seem to tally
with what precedes, provided, that is, we look upon Shnthelah,
Ezer and Elead (in ver. 21) as descendants of Ephraim  in the
seventh degree.  Undoubtedly the suffix in:.3nm~ (and they
slew them) may refer to the last names only.  But it is certainly a mistake to string the three last names together and look
upon them  as sons of Zabad, for in that case we should expect
to find "his sons" instead of "his son. "  The more correct
arrangement is that adopted by Bertheau (p. 82), who classes
the two last-named (Ezer and Elead) as sons of Ephraim himself,
who continue the series commenced with Shuthelah in ver. 20.
Again it is doubtful whether the Ephraimites or the Gatblites
are to be regarded as the subject of.Ann (they had gone down)
and what was the scene of this event. 1'It has generally been
supposed by earlier expositors, that the Ephraimites made a
predatory attack upon the Gathites, entering Philistia from
Egypt.  Calovinus (Bibl. illustr. ad. h. 1.) gives the following
unsatisfactory explanation of the event: " De Ephraimitis res
ita habet: mora impatientes et gloria prinmogeniturae a Jacobo
concessae tumentes tentarunt magnis consiliis eductionemn ex
Aegypto, adeoque progressi sunt, collecto exercitu, vivente adhuc
patre Ephraimo, ex Aegypto affines terrae Canaan. Quo nomine
accusat eos Assaph (Ps. lxxviii. 9), quod non exspectato justo
tempore terrain promissam invadere ausi fuerint fiducia copiarum
et peritia sua in re bellica, additque, quod justo Dei judicio
M 2




180                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
temeritatis suae poenas dederint, terga verterint, inque fuga
misere perierint."  But apart from the fact that Ps. lxxviii. 9
contains nothing at all of what Calovius has discovered there,
this exposition is rendered impossible by the word -i-t, which
cannot refer to an expedition from Egypt to the more elevated
land of Philistia.  If we suppose the Ephraimites to have been
in the land of Goshen at that time, we must necessarily regard
the Gathites as the aggressors.  Or if, on the other hand, we
refer the words " they came down" to the Ephraimites, we must
assume that they were no longer living in the land of Goshen,
but had already established themselves in the highlands of
Palestine.
Between these two interpretations we have to make our
choice.  Bet-feeazu and Lengerke decide in favour of the latter,
though we have already shown that the explanation given by
Lenyerke is inadmissible. Saalsci'itZ (Mos. Recht, Berlin 1848,
p. 651, seq.) also adopts it, and his interpretation is original and
well worthy of consideration.  His views are to some extent the
same as those advocated by Caloviuts, but he describes and
accounts for the expedition in a very different manner.  "From
chap. vii. 24, we perceive, he says, that a great-grand-daughter
of Joseph built both upper and lower Beth-horon in the land
of Canaan. If the building of these towns took place during
the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, as some suppose, and
as the context of the passage indisputably implies, seeing that
it speaks of Ephraim as still alive, we have a positive proof that
a portion of the Hebrews drove their flocks back to Palestine,
and that they even went so far as to establish themselves in the
land and build cities there.'  From  chap. vii. 21, it follows
as he thinks, "that the Ephraimites had settlements in Palestine,
before the death of Ephraim; and if these settlements were in
the district in which Beth-horon was built, either at that time
or a little later, the map will furnish us with the best exposition
of this passage in the Chronicles, for the situation of Beth-horon
is pretty well known to us, being identical, as Robinson thinks,
with Beit- Ur, which is about five hours' journey to the northwest of Jerusalem, that is, in the mountainous district at a short
distance from Gath."
The other view, which makes the Gathites the aggressors, has
been advocated by Lightfoot (Opp. i. 23, Rotterdam, 1686),




BIRTH AND EDUCATION OF MOSES.           181
CU. B. klifchaelis (Annotationes in hagiogr. iii. 370), and many
others. As the words "born in the land" must necessarily be
understood as applying to the land, into which the incursion
was made, the only explanation, which can possibly be given by
those who adopt this view, is that the Gathites, by whom the
attack was made, had formerly dwelt in the land of Goshen,
and that having been forced out by the spread of the Israelites,
they retaliated by making this attack upon their oppressors.
We admit that the words of the text allow of such an interpretation, but in several respects it appears to us a forced one.
First of all, it seems more natural to render the passage thus:
" The Gathites slew the Ephraimites, for ( ) they had gone
down to steal the cattle of the Gathites."  Again it appears to
us to be much more natural, i.e. more in accordance with the
context and with history, to understand the words "born in the
land" as referring to the land of Philistia.  And lastly, there
is the unmistakeable testimony of ver. 24, if we are correct in
our supposition that the erection of Beth-horon occurred before
the time of Moses. For these reasons, then, we are inclined to
give the preference to the interpretation of Saalsclhiitz.
BIRTH AND EDUCATION OF MOSES.
~ 19 (Exodus ii. 1 —22, vi. 16-25). —Just at the time when
the oppression was most severe, and when the command to drown
the new-born boys of the Israelites was most stringently enforced, a son was born to an Israelite named rAmram, of the
tribe of Levi and the family of Kehath, by his wife Jochebed (1).
The child was remarkable for its beauty; and therefore the
mother was all the more concerned to save it, if possible, from
the threatened destruction.  She succeeded in concealing it for
three months, but she could not hope to hide it any longer
from the keen eyes of the Egyptian executioners.  IMaternal
love, however, is always inventive.  Jochebed knew that Pharaoh's daughter was accustomed to bathe at a certain spot in
the Nile.  This knowledge helped her to form her plan.  She
reckoned on the tenderness of a woman's heart.  She placed the




182                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
child in an ark constructed of papyrus stalks and securely pitched,
and laid it among the reeds in the well-known spot by the side of
the Nile, and left her eldest daughter Mirian to watch its further
fate.  The plan was successful.  The king's daughter noticed
the ark, and had it brought to her; and the sight of the beautiful weeping infant did not fail to produce the desired impression
llpon her heart.  She soon conjectured that it must be one of
the Israelitish boys; and as if by accident, Miriam came forward.
She offered to fetch a Hebrew nurse. Of course she fetched the
child's own mother, and Pharaoh's daughter gave her the child
with the words: " take this child away, and nurse it for me,
and I will give thee thy wages" (2). We look forward with
anxiety to the future course of the child that has been so wonderfillly rescued, feeling sure that he is destinecl for some
remarkable mission. Nor can we doubt that some such surmise
or hope must have been entertained by his parents, and that
this increased their anxiety to give such a direction to his
mind, as would be most likely to lead to the fulfilment of their
own hopes.  It is true that the child would only remain a few
years in his parents' house, seeing that Pharaoh's daughter
intended to bring him up as her adopted son; but even at a
subsequent period it could not appear strange if the boy frequently visited his nurse's home. The people, too, to whom he
belonged by birth must certainly have gazed upon him with
looks full of expectation and hope; or, at any rate, they must
have regarded the extraordinary events of his early life, as proofs
of an overruling providence and divine call.-After he was
weaned, Jochebed brought back the boy to his foster-mother,
who gave him  the name Mo-udshe (i.e., ex aqua servatus,
LXX. Mo H0io-, Hebraized;,5j) (3), and had him educated
in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (4).  In this position a
splendid career awaited him.  The highest honours were within
-lie reach of the adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter.  But he




BIRTH AND EDUCATION OF MOSES.           183
felt within him a different call. He had imbibed affection for
his people with his mother's milk, and the sufferings of his
brethren went to his heart.  He believed that he was called to
be their deliverer and avenger.  W~hilst brooding over such
thoughts as these, he happened one day to see an Egyptian illtreating an Israelite.  At once he was carried away by his zeal
for his people, and, having slain the Egyptian, he buried him in
the sand.  There was no witness of what he had done except
the injured Israelite; but the news soon spread among the rest,
and it was probably the Israelite himself who circulated the
report.  Such a deed was like a general summons to them
to rise against their oppressors, and Moses imagined that
he had thereby obtained a certain amount of authority over
his brethren.  A short time afterwards he saw two Israelites
quarrelling, and wished to act as arbitrator, but he was rudely
thrust aside by the one whom he pronounced in the wrong.
" Vho," said he, "made thee a prince and a judge over us?
Intendest thou to kill me as thou killedst the Egyptian?"  On
account of this, the report of what Moses had done began to
spread among the Egyptians as well. The king heard of it, and
determined to put hint to death.  Under these circu-mstancespursued by the king, and forsaken by the people —Mioses saw
the necessity for fligyht (5). He sought refuge, and found it, in
the land of the ]Jiciacnites (6).  A prince and priest of this
people, named Beguel (7), received him into his house on account
of the protection he had afforded to his daughters against the
rudeness of the shepherds, gave him his daughter Zipporah as a
wife, and entrusted his flocks to his care. The flight of Moses
from Egypt introduced him into a new training school.  At
Pharaoh's court he had learned much that was requirecd to fit
him for his vocation, as the deliverer and leader of Israel, as the
mediator of the ancient covenant and founder of the theocracy,
and also as a prophet and lawgiver.  But his education there
had been of a verti partial character.  He had lcarnmed to ruele,




184                   ISRAEL IN EGYPTbut not to serve, and the latter was as necessary, if not more so
than the former. He possessed the fiery zeal of youth, but not
the circumspection, the patience, or the firmness of age. A
consciousness of his vocation had been aroused within him when
in Egypt; but it was mixed with selfishness, pride, and ambition, with headstrong zeal, but yet with a pusillanimity which
was soon daunted. He did not understand the art of being still
and enduring, of waiting and listening for the direction of God,
an art so indispensable for all wiho labour in the kingdom  of
God.  In the school of Egyptian wisdom his mind had been
enriched with all the treasures of man's wisdom, but his heart
was still the rebellious unbelieving heart of the natural man,
and therefore but little adapted for the reception of divine
wisdom, and by no means fitted for performing the works of God.
And even the habit of sifting and selecting, of pondering and
testing, acquired by a man of learning and experience, must
certainly have been far from securing anything like the mature
wisdom and steadfastness demanded by his vocation. All this
he had yet to acquire.  Persecution and affliction, want and
exile, nature and solitude, were now to be his tutors, and
complete his education, before he entered upon the duties of his
divine vocation (8).
(1). On Amram and Jochebed see ~ 14. 1. Moses was not their
first-born son. His brother Aaron was three years older than
he (Ex. vii. 7); whilst his sister, whose name (Mliriam, LXX.
Maplapa) we do not learn till afterwards (Ex. xv. 20), had
evidently grown up before he was born (Ex. ii. 4). The following is the family-pedigree:
Levi,.
Gershon,    KEIIATH,     Merari.
AMRAM.
M1 iriam.             AARON,               MOSES.
Nadab, Abihiu, ELEAZAR, Ithamnar. (ershon, Eliezer.
PHINEITAS.




BIRTH AND EDUCATION OF MOSES.          185
(2). The biblical record expressly mentions the striking beauty
of the child, as leading to the mother's determination to conceal
and, if possible, save it. Ver. 2: " And she saw the child that it
was good" (l2%-~,  LXX., aZCr.7os). It is true, that it is not an
unusual thing for a mother to think her new-born child beautiful; but just because it is not unusual, the peculiar character of
the sacred record leads to the conclusion, that in this case there
must have been something more than usual. Stephen had this
impression, for he expressly traces the connexion between the
beauty of the child and God himself (Kab 7v aTfELto   TWc Oe).
Some message from God must have been communicated to the
mother in a peculiar manner by the eyes of the child; she may
have seen in them the intimations of an eventful future, which,
with her faith in the promises made to the fathers, stood out
before her mind in marked contrast with the oppressions, the
sufferings, and the anxieties of the present.
This was also the view taken by the author of the epistle to
the Hebrews (chap. xi. 23), for he extols the concealment of
the child as an act of faith.  The whole affair would be still
clearer, if we could rely upon the Jewish tradition that Amram.
was a prophet.  But there is nothing to warrant this; on the
contrary the tradition itself appears to have been founded entirely upon the passage before us.  If the birth of Moses had
been attended by any direct revelations or predictions from God,
the sacred record, according to its usual custom, would certainly
have mentioned them.  And in its silence in this respect we
find a proof of its historical fidelity.-Josep2hus mentions the
name of Pharaoh's daughter. In Ant. 2. 9. 5 he calls her Thermut his. But there is no more reliance to be placed upon his
account, than upon that of Eusebius (praep. evang. ix. 27) who
calls her Mj3ptpe. The latter looks like a corruption of Miriam.
-The queen's daughter bathing in the Nile causes great offence to
Herr v. Bohlen (Genesis lxxxi.), who regards it as an evidence
of the author's gross ignorance of Egyptian customs.  However
the "gross ignorance" falls back upon the critic.  In Egypt
there was nothing like the same restraint upon women as in
oriental countries or even in Greece.  On some of the monuments we meet with scenes, in which the women associate with
the men with almost as much freedom as modern Europeans
(Hengstenberg Egypt and MToses, p. 26).  "That the king's




186                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
daughter went to the Nile to wash (dh+.) is explained by the
Egyptian notion of the sacredness of the Nile. A representation
of an Egyptian bathing scene-a lady with four female servants
who attend upon her to perform various offices,-is found in WFilkinson iii. 389" (Henystenber/, p. 86).  The preparation of the
little ark too (whose name::adz reminds one of Noah's ark),
the papyrus of which it was composed, and the asphalt and
pitch with which it was covered, all harmonize with the antiquities of Egypt (see Hfengstenbery, p. 85).-Under the circum -
stances there is nothing surprising in the fact, that as soon as
the princess saw the boy, she concluded that it must be a
Hebrew child; and there is certainly no necessity for assuming with A ben Ezra and Theodoret, O'TL } 7rTEpTO/.b7  TOVTO
E8061qo-e.-We may introduce here a most sensible remark made
by Baumcgarten in his Theological Commentary (i. 1, p. 399):
" In the fact, that it was necessary for the deliverer of Israel
irom the power of Egypt to be himself first delivered by the
daughter of the king of Egypt, we find the same interweaving
of the history of Israel with the history of the Gentiles, which
we have already observed in the history of J oseph; and we may
now regard it as a law, that the preference shown to Israel, when
it was selected as the chosen seed, on whom the blessings were
first bestowed, was to be counterbalanced by the fact, that the
salvation of Israel could not be fully effected without the intervention of the Gentiles.  This was the opinion of Cyril of
A lexandrict, which he expressed in his usual allegorical style by
saying: the daughter of Pharaoh is the community of the Gentiles."  In all the decisive turning points of the sacred history,
whenever a new bud was about to open, some heathen power
always came forward, as though summoned by the providence of
God, to assist in bursting the fetters by which the bud was held,
in order that it might open into a splendid and fragrant flower.
(3). The time of weaninzy is generally supposed (according to
2 Macc. vii. 27; 1 Sam. i. 23, 24; Jose3phus, Ant. ii. 9, 6), to
have been at the end of the third year. As the princess was
about to adopt the child and bring it up as her own (ver. 10), it
is most likely that, according to a mother's rights, she gave it its
name. If so, she would naturally select an Egyptian name. But
the name i,'IMF is certainly Hebrew (- one who draws out, the
deliverer).  We have here, however, without doubt, a similar




BIRTH AND EDUCATION OF MOSES.            187
case to that which we meet with in Gen. xli. 45, where the
Egyptian name, Psomtomphanech, which Pharaoh gave to
Joseph, is handed down in the form, Zaphnath-Paaneah, which
admits of a Hebrew etymology (Vol. i. ~ 88, 2). And in both cases
the Septuagint puts us upon the right track, by writing the name
in a manner more closely resembling the original Egyptian form.
Thus the name of Mloses is always written, Mro/ia, of which
Joseph2us (Ant. ii. 9, 6), gives the correct explanation: To3 yap
~&op Mf2 oL AiyV7rMTo KaXOV'tV, TrHv Z  3c 7o 0  E: iVaros e o'eOvTas~. Philo explains it in a similar manner (de vita Mos. ii.
83, ed. Mang.): 8t5 a To e0K TO  V3aTOS aroTvT aveXeo-0at' To p yap
/vop Mf2' 3volu/acovrtv AiyIr3TtOL).  In this Clemens of Alexandria (Strom. i. 251 ed. Sylb.), and Ezekiel the tragedian
(Eusebius praep. ev. ix. 28) agree. The derivation here given
is confirmed by our present acquaintance with the Coptic, in
which Mo means owate, and Ucdshe saved (cf. Jablonscki opusc.
i. 152 sqq.). nMost modern authors adopt it; but though Gesenius will not actually reject it, he says in his Thesaurus that
reputans sibi norminume propriorum  apud veteres Aegyptios usitatorum, quac pleraque cum Deorum nomiinibus conjuncta sunt
ratione (e.g. Amros, ThuthmBs, Phthamos, Rham0s, &c.), he
must prefer to trace the name to the Egyptian word M6s, a son,
and to assume that the first part of the word, which contained
the name of a god, was dropped in Hebrew usage. No one but
Lengerke (i. 390), supports this explanation, and it will hardly
meet with any further approval.  Many of the earlier theologians
made it, to a certain extent, a point of honour to affirm, that it
was not Pharaoh's daughter, but the child's own mother, who
gave it its name.  Thus Pfeiffier (dub. vex., p. 214), following
A4barbanel, renders ver. 10: " adduxit eum (sc. mater ipsius)
ad filiam  Pharaonis et factus est ipsi filius.  Vocarat vero
nomen ejus (sc. mater jam  dudum) Mose (quod tum  indicabat filiae Pharaonis), et dicebat: quia ex aqua educendum curasti eum," defending his translation on the ground that.,nWt~., not only can, but must be the second person feminine
(since it is written ciefective, without s). But apart from every other
consideration, we should in this case expect to find not,'Ijn but
e.r:. lVeier also decides that the name was originally Hebrew
(Wurzel-wNrterb. p. 704).  In his opinion the real name of




188                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
Moses was Osarsiph (meaning Osiris-sword), for which we have
the testimony of Manetho (in Josephus c. Apion i. 26-28);
and he received the name Moses (meaning the deliverer, leader,
duke, dux) in connexion with the exodus firom Egypt.  We
cannot adopt this explanation, since the Scripture-record attributes the naming to the princess, though under other circumstances it would commend itself; on the other hand, we do not
hesitate for a moment to adopt the explanation given by Joselphus,
Philo, and Clemens, and based upon the Septuaygint, since it
meets all the requirements of the language and necessities of the
case. The name did not suit the Hebrew organs of speech, and
was therefore involuntarily changed by the Israelites into the
form in which we have received it.  At the same time this involuntary change became an unintentional prophecy, for he
who had been delivered (taken out) actually became a deliverer.
Vox populi, vox Dei.
(4). " Moses was trained," says Stephen, (Acts vii. 22), in all
the wisdom of the Egyptians."  These words are not founded
upon a baseless tradition, or the creation of his own fancy, but form
a just and.necessary comment upon Ex. ii. 10: " and he became
her son." The adopted son of the daughter of an Egyptian king
must have been trained in all the wisdom of Egypt. This is also
in harmony with the tradition reported by Mlanetheo, which makes
Moses a priest of Heliopolis, and therefore presupposes a priestly
education. It was precisely this education in the vwisdom of the
Egyptians, which was the ultimate design of God in all the
leadings of his providence, not only with reference to the boy,
but, we might say, to the whole of Israel.  For it was in order
to appropriate the wisdom and culture of Egypt, and to take possession of them as a human basis for divine instruction and
direction, that Jacob's family left the land of their fathers' pilgrimage, and their descendants' hope and promise.  But the
guidance and fate of the whole of Israel were at this time concentrated in Moses.  "As Joseph's elevation to the post of
grand-vizier of Egypt placed him in a position to provide for his
father's house in the time of famine, so was Moses fitted by the
Egyptian training received at Pharaoh's court to become the
leader and lawgiver of his people."  (Baumgarten theol. Comm.
I. i. 399).  There can be no doubt that the foster-son of the
king's daughter, the highly-gifted nald well educated youth, had




BIRTH AND EDUCATION OF MOSES.           189
the most brilliant course open before him in the Egyptian state.
Had he desired it, he would most likely have been able to rise
like Joseph to the highest honours.  But affairs were very different now.  Moses could not enter on such a course as this
without sacrificing his nation, his convictions, his hopes, his
faith, and his vocation.  But that he neither would, nor durst,
nor could.  And hence it is with perfect truth that the author
of the epistle to the Hebrews, when tracing the course of the history, says (ch. xi. 24-26): " by faith  Moses, when he was come
to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter,
choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than
to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach
of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he had
respect unto the recompence of the reward."  Winer, who generally defends the historical character of our record against the
attacks of the myth-loving critics, finds it difficult to explain
" how it is that Moses should have been trained by an Egyptian
princess, and yet is never represented as known to the court,
when engaged in his subsequent negotiations- with Pharaoh,
whilst even in Ex. ii. 11, there is no allusion to his connexion with
Pharaoh's daughter."  (Realw6rterbuch ii. 10).  But for my
part I cannot perceive the slightest difficulty in this. With regard to the former, a long series of years had passed since the
flight of Moses from Egypt (Ex. vii. 7); the king who was reigning then had long since died (Ex. ii. 23); an entirely new
generation had grown up; and we cannot therefore be surprised
at the fact that Moses was no longer known at the court. But
even supposing that he had been recognised, was there any
reason why this should be specially noticed in the biblical
narrative?  Is there anywhere an express statement to the
effect that he was not known?  We believe that a negative
reply must be given to both these questions.  There is just as
little ground for the second difficulty. The princess may have
been dead when the event referred to in Ex. ii. 11 occurred, or,
if not, it is just possible that as the attachment of Moses to his
own people and his dislike of their oppressors became more and
more apparent, there may have sprung up a growing estrangement between him  and his foster-mother.  And it is also
probable that he may have begun to keep aloof from the court,
meditating more upon the way to deliver his people, than




190                 ISitAEL IN EGIYP'T.
upon the means of retaining the favour he had previously enjoyed.
Wineer has made a good collection of the legendary tales
associated with the early history of Moses in the Jewish mythology: " He is said to have been instructed in all the wisdom of
the Egyptians, both by Egyptian and foreign teachers, including Greeks, Assyrians, and Chaldeans, and to have been remarkable as a boy for his enchanting beauty (Plilo Opp. ii. 84,
cf. Clemens ofA lexanzdria Strom. i. 148. Josephus Ant. 1. c. cf.
Justin 36. 2). Justin says,' loses.. quem formae
pulchrit'udo commendabat.' When he had grown up to be a
young man, he led an Egyptian army against Ethiopia, and
forced his way to M3ero6, where he married the Ethiopian princess Tharbis, who had become enamoured of the fine manly
youth, and had opened the gates of the fortress to his army
(Josephzus Ant. ii. 20)."  The additional account given by
Josephus (Ant. ii. 9. 7) is evidently copied from the legend concerning the elder Cyrus.  He says the childless princess intended that the child should succeed to the throne, and endeavoured to win over her father, the aged king, to her plan. As
a token of his consent, the king took the boy in his arms, hugged
him, and put the royal diadem upon his head. But the child
threw the crown upon the ground and stamped upon it. Upon
this a scribe, who had formerly prophesied that a child would be
born, who would be dangerous to Egypt, declared that this was
the dangerous child, whose birth he had predicted, and requested
that he should be put to death.  But Thermuthis protected
the child, and the king gradually forgot the occurrence, &e. The
marriage of ]M/oses with an Ethiopian princess was probably
founded upon Num. xii. 1, where we read of his Ethiopian
wife (Vol. iii. ~ 27. 3).
(5). The conduct of Moses towards the offending E9gyptian,
and the reply he received from the insolent Israelite, are very important, as helps to an acquaintance with his inner life at that
time, his thoughts and imaginations, his hopes and fears. Here
again, Stephen furnishes us with a complete, and well-founded
explanation (Acts vii. 25): " he supposed his brethren would
have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them;
but they understood not."  He is full of thoughts of deliverance,
but does not yet know how he shall carry them  out. He feels




BIRTH AND EDUCATION OF MOSES.            191
within himself that he is called to this work, he believes that
this feeling is the voice of God; but there is a carnal thirst for
great achievements and worldly ambition mixed up with it, and
these are unfitted for the ways of God.  lie is anxious to attract
the attention of his brethren; he thinks that the adopted son of
the king's daughter has naturally a right to stand at the head
of his people; he has only to show that he is ready to do this,
and all the people will acquiesce in a moment. But he was greatly
mistaken.  This, however, formed part of his training for his
vocation; it was necessary that he should pass through some
such experience as this, before he could be matured for his
future work.  He must find out the perverseness of his people,
who would not observe and learn; and the perverseness of his
own heart, whose courage and confidence were changed into
cowardice and despair at the first failure that occurred.  He
must also discover the ways of God, who will not tolerate a man's
self-confidence or self-elected ways. Still the love of Moses to
his people was strong and noble, his vocation was true, and his
aims were essentially godly. All these, however (as in the case
of Joseph, Vol. i. ~ 84. 1), required a thorough purification and
sanctification in the school of affliction and of humiliation,
before God could use them to work out his designs.  Hence, for
the present, Mloses could not succeed.  Moreover, the weakness
of his carnal mind and his natural pride was soon apparent,
from the manner in which they gave way to despondency and
cowardice at the very first failure.  But this also was necessary
to bring him into the school, whose discipline he still greatly
needed, and in which his training was to be of a very different
kind.  The means which he thought most likely to rescue his
people from misery, only led him into misery himself. And the
events which seemed to carry him away from his vocation, were
those which opened the right way for its accomplishment. Such
are the ways of God.  The Scripture-record does not blame him
for killing the Egyptian, but leaves the Nemesis, which appeared
in the consequences, to pronounce the sentence. The Pentcateuch
contains no information as to the age of M3oses, when he fled from
Egypt; but when he returned in obedience to the command of
God, he is said to have been in his eightieth year (chap. vii. 7).
Stephen, who most likely follows the Jewish tradition, says that
he was forty years old when he fled (Acts vii 30). But when




192                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
we consider that his sons must have been still young at the
time of the exodus from Egypt (Ex. iv. 20, 25, xviii. 3), it does
not seem probable that he remained with the Midianites so long
as forty years. Still it is possible that his sons may have been
born some years after his marriage.
(6). The 3]idianites were an Arabian tribe, descended, according to Gen. xxv. 2-4, from Abraham by his second wife
Keturah. As early as the time of Jacob, we find them associated
with the Ishmaelites in carrying on the caravan-trade between
Asia and Egypt (Gen. xxxvii. 28, 36).  This is in itself sufficient to indicate that their proper and original settlement was
in the neighbourhood of the Elanitic gulf, which was the central
point of such international commerce. And our conclusion is
confirmed both by ancient and modern accounts and researches
(vid. Bitter's Erdkunde xiii. p. 287).  Eusebius says that the
town of MBidian was situated ~erbecetVa T'r'Apa31as 7rpo3 vdTrov d
spolus) Twv Y'apacKrpvoV G  dpvOpqPs OaXdo'or'lq r' viaTroX'a (Onomast. s. v. Ma&a4t); and in the middle ages the Arabian geographers Edrisi and A bulfeda (Arab. descr. p. 77 ed. Rommel)
spoke of the ruins of this city as being found on the eastern
side of the Elanitic gulf, five days' journey from Ailab.  Seetzen,
following these accounts, fixed upon a spot in the Wady Magne
(Mukne) on the eastern side of the gulf, nearly opposite to Sinai,
as the site of the town, of which at present no trace remains
(vid. monatl. Corresp. xxv. 1812, p. 395). Laborde, on the
contrary, thinks that he has proved that the city stood upon the
western side of the gulf, near to the present harbour of Dahab,
in the same latitude as Mount Sinai, with which it was connected
by the Wady Zakal (es-Sa'l): (comment. geogr. p. 6 sqq.).
This opinion is expressed with great confidence, but it is fallacious in every respect, and destitute of the slightest foundation.
Dahab is undoubtedly identical with the biblical Di-Sahab
(Deut. i. 1); cf. Ritter Erdkunde xiv. 233; Hengstenberg,
Balaam p. 225; Ewald ii. 326, 327. Towards the end of the
Mosaic period, however, we meet with a numerous tribe of
Midianites, who lived to the east of Canaan near the Moabites
and Edomites, and who sustained a considerable defeat from
the Israelites (Num. xxii. 4, 7; xxv. 6, 17; xxxi.).  These
Midianites had come into collision with the Edomites at an
earlier period, and had been repulsed by them  (Gen. xxxvi.




BIRTHI AND EDUCATION OF MOSES.
35).  From  the data thus obtained, we conclude that the
Midianites spread northwards from Midian as far as the borders
of Moab, but it is very doubtful whether they also spread westwards into Arabia Petraea.  The sojourn of Moses in the land of
the Midianites has been adduced as a proof that this was the
case. For it seems more likely that Ex. ii. 15 sqq. refers to
Arabia Petraea, where Moses would undoubtedly have been perfectly secure from discovery by Pharaoh, than to the more distant
land on the other side of the Elanitic gulf. Moreover, when we
read in Ex. iii. 1 that Moses led the flock of his father-in-law to
the back of the desert, to Horeb the mountain of God, it can
hardly be supposed that the fixed abode of the Midianitish. Emir
was so far from his flock, as it must have been if the settlements
of the tribe were on the other side of the gulf.  And again, the
accurate acquaintance of Hfobab the son of Reguel with the
localities of Arabia Petraea (Num. x. 31) favours the conclusion,
that his tribe had formerly dwelt in that district.  But there are
data, on the other hand, which render such an assumption a
very doubtful one. The Israelites did not once meet with the
Midianites during their journey through the desert; and when
the father-in-law of Moses visited him during the encampment
at Sinai, and brought him his wife and children, he evidently
came from  a great distance (Ex. xviii.).  Now it is evident
that there is no irreconcileable discrepancy between these different accounts. The only difficulty is to make a selection between
the many possible solutions; and the Scripture-record does
not supply us with data of sufficient certainty for this. The
only precise information is that given in Ex. iii. 1: Moses led
the flock of his father-in-law behind the desert (ZI    s-u)
to Mount Horeb.  Bitter believes that this is quite in harmony
with his assumption that Reguel's tribe also dwelt on the east of
the Elanitic gulf (Erdk. xiv. 234).  He explains )rn4 as meaning westwards: Moses drove the flock from the eastern coast of
the gulf to the western. But if we regard this explanation as
admissible, it seems to me that we must also assume that the
whole tribe, of which Reguel was the head, went over to the
eastern coast at the same time as Moses, for it is highly improbable that Moses went away alone to so great a distance with
the flock entrusted to his care. However, "westcard to the
desert" is in itself a very questionable rendering of achar harmVOL. II.                                    N




194                   ISRAELt IN EGYPT.
mnidbClr.  In ally case it might be more advisable to abide by
the natural translation, " to the back of tihe desert," from which
it would follow that Moses traversed a barren tract of desert with
his flocks, before he arrived at the pasture land of the mountains
of Sinai.  We should then have to look for the settlements of
this tribe of Midianites somewhere to the east or north-east of
Sinai, but still on the western side of the gulf.  Subsequently,
however, and after the call of Moses, they must have left this
district and sought pasturage elsewhere, probably returning once
more to the eastern side of the gulf.  We are obliged to assume
this, for the simple reason that the Israelites never met with the
Mcidianites, and the father-in-law of 2Moses came front a distance
to visit him (Ex. xviii., Num. x. 30).  But whatever our decision
may be, we munst at all events regard the:Midianitish tribe of'
which iReguel was the head as a nomadic branch, which had
separated from the main body of the nation, and never united
with the rest again; for whilst the great mass of the Midianites
always maintatained a hostile position townards Israel, the descendants of Reguel continued friendly to the last (Vol. iii. ~ 32. 2).
(7). A fresh difficulty arises fromn the different names given
to the Hlidianitish priest, into whose service Mloses entered, and
to whom  he became related.  In Ex. ii. 18 sqq. he is called
REGUEL ([2.''), and described as the father of Zipporah.
But afterwards (in chap. iii. 1, iv. 18, xviii. 1 sqq.) he is called
JETHRO, and described as the father-in-lawz  (dwpn) of MIoses.
In Num. x. 29 we meet with him under the name of HOBAB,
where he is described as the son of Reguel, and the Ohothen of
Moses; and the same description occurs again in Judg. iv. 11.
Hartmnann, De Wette, and others regard these differences as attributable to differences and discrepancies in the genealogies
employed.  But in that case we should have to impute to the
author, be he who he may, an amount of carelessness, which is
really inconceivable (and this even  Winer admits, ii. 310).
The author, who wrote two different names so close together as
in chap. ii. 18 and iii. 1), must certainly have been conscious of
this difference, and if he had found any discrepancy in the two
accounts, he would not have adopted them both. But if he saw
no discrepancy, we are not justified in supposing that any really
existed. The different notions conveyed by the word Hi, which




BIRTH AND EDUCATION OF MOSES.             195
meant both father and grand-father, and by OtF, which was
used for brother-in-law and father-in-law, as well as the constant
fluctuations in the use of names, justify us in assuming that the
cause of the difference is to be sought in the one or the other.
The most probable explanation is, that one of the names was a
title of honour, given to indicate his priestly and princely dignity.
Lengerke supposes the name Reguel (i.e. friend of God) to have
been the official name (Kenaan i. 391).  But he appears to me
to be mistaken in his selection, since we should expect to
find the proper name, and not the official designation, mentioned in connexion with his first appearance in Ex. ii. 21, and
still more in the genealogical accountu in Num. x. 29.  We
prefer to ascribe to the name Jethro (i.e. excellentia ejus) the
dignity of an official title, especially as we find it written in the
form n-n  in Ex. iv. 18.  The three names would thus be
reduced to two, and the only questions remaining would be:
(1) whether we are to identify the Jethro of Ex. iii. 4, 18, with
the Reguel in Ex. ii. 18, or with the Hobab in iNum. x. 29 and
Judg. iv. 11; and (2) whether we are to regard Reguel as Zipporah's father, or grand-father, and Hobab as the brother-in law
orfather-in-law of Moses.  To the first question it seems to us
that the only possible answer is that the Jethro, mentioned in
Ex. iii. 4, 18, is the same person as the Reguel referred to in
Ex. ii. 18; with regard to the second we are doubtful whether
we are to consider the my in Ex. ii. 18 or the  inn in NBum. x. 29
as used indefinitely, i.e. whether the former is to be rendered
grand-father, or the latter brother-in-law. Ranke (Pentat. ii. 8)
decides in favour of the latter, and adduces Judg. xix. 4, 6, 9,
to confirm the indefinite character of the word plai; for in
these passages, on account of the ambiguity of the word, which
might just as well mean brother-in-latw as father-in-law, the
words " the father of the damsel" are added to point out what
the meaning of the word really is.-So much, at all events, is
clear: that Reguel, who was also called Jethro, was at the head
of the tribe up to the period referred to in Ex. xviii.  It is in
Ium. x. that we first meet with Bobab as the leader of the
tribe, and on this account he is also classed genealogically as
the son of Reguel.  In the meantime, therefore, Reguel must
have died.  The father-in-law of Moses is held in veneration as
N2




196                 ISRAEL IN ECYPT'.
a prophet, both in the Koran and among the Arabs, under the,
name Shoeib (which has arisen probably from an alteration of
the name HFobab).
The description given of Reguel, that he was a priest of
Midian, suggests the enquiry, what was the religious condition
of that people?  In seeking for an answer to this question, we
must necessarily make a distinction between the different groups
into which the AMidianites were divided. We know nothing at
a11 with regard to the religion of those who dwelt on the eastern
side of the Elanitic gulf, and who, according to Gen. xxxvii. 28,
36, were a trading community mixed up with the Ishmaelites.
On the other hand, we know that those who dwelt on the north,
and were allies of the Moabites (Num. xxii. 25), had given
thetmselves up to the abominable worship of Baal-peor, probably
in consequence of their connexion with the Moabites. With
reference to the third group, of which Reguel, and subsequently
H[obab, were chiefs, we can safely assume, so munch at least, that
they were not worshippers of Baal-peor. Such a thing is absolutely inconceivable, when we consider the close association
which was constantly maintained between them and the Israelites
(Vol. iii. ~ 32. 2). Their nomadic isolation from the rest of the tribe
renders it probable (and the earlier the separation took place the
greater the probability would be), that in general they had preserved the theism, which they inherited from Abraham (see Ex.
xviii. 9 sqq.).  Still, we must not form too exalted a notion of
the purity and genuineness of their theism, since Moses evidently
refrained from communicating much to Jethro respecting the
divine revelations which he had received. And the obstinate
refusal of Zipporah to allow her sons to be circumcised (Ex. iv.
25) indicates a feeling of contempt for the religion of the
Israelites.
(8). The house of the Midianitish priest was, doubtless, a
severe but salutary school of humiliation and affliction, of want
and self-denial, to the spoiled foster-son of the king's daughter.
WTe can understand this, if we merely picture to ourselves the
contrast between the luxury of the court and the toil connected
with a shepherd's life in the desert. But we have good ground
for supposing that his present situation was trying and humiliating in other respects also.  His marriage does not seem to
have been a happy one, and his position in the house of his




BiRT.'lH AND EDLCATION OF ~)OSES.       197
father-in-law was apparently somewhat subordlinate and servile.
The account, given in Ex. iv. 24 sqq. (~ 21. 3), shows us
clearly enough the character of his wife.  Zil)orah is there
represented as a querulous, self-willed, and passionate woman,
who sets her own will in opposition to that of her husband, who
will not trouble herself about his religious convictions, and, even
when his life is evidently in danger, does not conceal the reluctance with which she agrees to submit, in order to save him.
We might be astonished to find that a man of so much force
of character as Moses possessed, could ever suffer this female
government.  But the circumstances in which he was placed
sufficiently explain them.  He had arrived there poor and helpless, as a man who was flying from pursuit.  A fortunate combination of circumstances led to his receiving the Emir's daughter
as his wife.  It is true he could not pay the usual dowry.  But
the remarkable antecedents of his life, his superior mental endowments, his manly beauty, and other things, may have been
regarded at first by his chosen bride and her relations as an
adequate compensation for its omission.  But if the character of
Zipporah were such as we may conclude it to have been from
Ex. iv. 24 sqq., we can very well imagine that she soon began to
despise all these, and made her husband feel that he was only
eating the bread of charity in her father's house.  Nor does he
seem to have been admitted to any very intimate terms with his
father-in-law; at least we might be led to this conclusion by the
reserve with which he communicated to Jethro his intended
departure, and the little confidence which he displayed (Ex. iv.
18).  Thus he was, and continued to be, a foreigner among the
Mlidianites; kept in the background and misunderstood, even by
those who were related to him by the closest ties. And if this
was his condition, the sorrows arising firon his exile, and his
homeless and forlorn condition, must have been doubly, yea
trebly severe.  Under circumstances such as these, his attachment to his people, and his longing to rejoin them, instead of
cooling, would grow stronger and stronger. There is something
very expressive in this respect in the names which he gave to the
sons who were born to him during his exile (Ex. ii. 22; xviii.
3, 4). They enable us to look deeply into the state of his mind
at that time, for (as so frequently happened) he incorporated in
t,hem the strongest feelings and desires of his heart.  The eldest




198                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
he named Gershom, which means a stranger there, "for," he
said, " I have become a stranger in a strange land;" and when
the second was born, he said, " the God of my father has been
my help, and has delivered me from the hand of Pharaoh," and
he called him Eliezer (God is help). We may also call to mind
the miserable style in which he set out to return to Egypt (Ex.
iv. 20): his wife and child he placed upon an ass, and he himself went on foot by their side.
THE CALL OF MOSES.
Vid. Die Berufung Moseh's (by Hengstenberg?) in the
Evangelizsche Kirchenzeitung 1837. No. 50-51.
~ 20 (Ex. ii. 23- iv. 17).-The oppression of the Israelites in
Egypt still continued.  The king died, but the principles of his
government were carried out by his successor. The change of
rulers appears to have excited hopes in the minds of the Israelites, which were doomed to disappointment. Their oppression
was not only perpetuated, but rendered increasingly severe,
and their disappointment added to their sufferings. But the
first signs of a powerful agitation were just appearing among
the people, an agitation which was to ripen them for freedom.   It was not a resolution to help themselves, or a plot
to overthrow the existing government, which grew out of these
disappointed hopes, but a movement of a much more powerful
character, namely a disposition to sigh and mourn and call upon
Him who is an avenger of the oppressed, and a friend of the
miserable. And this movement attained its object; God heard
their complaint and remembered his covenant with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob.  The hour of their redemption was drawing
iigh. Moses, too, who was destined to be the saviour of Israel,
hl,.d passed through the chief school of his life, the school. of




CALL OF MOSES.                   199
humiliation and affliction, and was now ready to obey his call.
This call was now for the first time distinctly made known to
him as the voice of God. He was feeding the flock of Jethro
in the fertile meadows of Mount Horeb (1), when there appeared
to him one day a miraculous vision. He saw a bush in the distance burning with brilliant flames, andcl yet not consumed (2).
As he was hastening to the spot to look at this wonderful phenomenon more closely, he heard a voice calling to him and
saying, " put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon
thou standest is holy ground."  This was a voice which had been
silent for 400 years, the voice of the angel of God, in whom God
had so often appeared to the fathers of his people (Vol. i. ~ 50. 2).
Moses was not left for a moment in doubt as to the Being who
was addressing him, for the voice continued: " I am the God of
thy father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."  On hearing
this, Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look on God (3).
The word of God, which was then addressed to Moses by the
angel of the Lord, contained the key to a right understanding
of the vision: Jehovah had seen the affliction of his people in
Egypt, had heard their sighing and their cries, and had come
down to deliver them  out of the hands of the Egyptians, and
bring them into the land of promise.  "' Come, now, therefore,"
he said, "I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou inayest
bring forth my people out of Egypt."  Moses was directed to
go to Egypt, and having assembled the elders of Israel, to introduce himself to them as a messenger of God sent to effect their
deliverance. He was then to go with them to Pharaoh, and first
of all demand of him, in the name of Jehovah, the God of the
Hebrews, that he would let the people go a three days' journey
into the wilderness and sacrifice to their God.  It could be
foreseen that such a request would be strongly opposed by the
king; in fact, this was expressly foretold him by Godl: but with
this prediction there was coupled the assllrance, that tfhe al'mi-n(ty




200                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
hand of Jehovah would open the way before him by means of
signs and wonders (4).
How did Moses act when he heard the words of God announce this divine commission, and beheld the representation of
its object in the miraculous sign? He had become a different
man in his exile. Formerly he had burned with eager desire to
appear as the deliverer of his people, and had offered to effect it of
his own accord; but now he sought in every way to excuse himself from the divine command, by which he was called and
equipped for the task. The training he received at Pharaoh's
court had borne its fruit, and this fruit was essential to the fulfilment of his vocation; but it also gave birth to pride, false
confidence, and a trust in his own power, which were unsuitable
for the work. The discipline of his desert-school had broken
down this pride and taught him humility, and had made him
conscious of his utter weakness. His false confidence in his own
power and wisdom had vanished, but he still wanted that true
and proper confidence in the power and wisdom of God, by
which the weak can be made strong. Not that he had any
doubt as to the power of God; but he doubted his own fitness to
serve as the organ of this power, although God himself had
called him: and in these doubts there was just as much false
humility, as there was false pride in the confidence he felt before.
Still, excessive humility is always nearer to the proper state of
mind than pride, that knows no bounds. And this was the
case with Moses. With inexhaustible patience God follows the
windings of his false humility, meeting his difficulties with promises and assurances of strength, and his refusals with mildness,
but with firmness also (5). " Who am I," said Moses, " that I
should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children
of' Israel out of Egypt?"  To this Jehovah replies: " I will be
with thee," and places the issue of his mission in the most striking manner before his mind, by telling him that on that very




CALL OF MOSES.                  201
mountain the people should sacrifice to God, when they had been
delivered out of Egypt.  The altar for the sacrifice was already
built.  So certain was God that it would be offered, and so important was the sacrifice in the estimation of God, that when he
founded the world, he had prepared the place on which it was to
be presented.  Thus Sinai itself was a pledge of success, a monument, and a witness of the call of Moses and the promises of
God.  The scruples of Moses were at length removed, at least
for a time. He began to grow familiar with the thought, that he
was to appear before the people as the messenger of God, and to
reflect upon the manner in which he should introduce himself to
them.  It was now four hundred years since the God of the
fathers had manifested himself.  Hence it appeared the more
important, that this God should be announced to the people by
a name, which would clearly and definitely express the character
of the new revelation.  It was requisite that the name of the
God, who appeared to deliver, should contain in itself a pledge
of success, if it was to excite any confidence at all.  Moses,
therefore, asked for some name, which he might hold up before
the people, as the banner that was to lead them to victory, and
which he might use as the watchword of the coming conflict.
His request was granted.  God communicated to him the name,
which from the very first had expressed his relation to the sacred
history, the name Jehovah; but by the explanation, which He
gave of that name, He made Moses feel that it was a name,
whose fulness would not be exhausted, till the eternal counsels
of salvation had been fulfilled and exhausted by the events of
history, and which therefore, whatever might be its age, would
still be always new (6).  Moses then raised another difficulty:
" Will they believe me, when I appear before them as the messenger of God?"  Jehovah met this difficulty by giving him a
threefold miraculous power, by which to attest his mission both
before the people and Pharaoh (7).  There was still one ob



202                  ISIRAEL IN EGYPT.
stacle remaining: his slowness of speech, his want of eloquence.
But Jehovah replied: " Did not I create man's mouth?  Go
and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shall
say."  The difficulties in Moses' path were now all removed, and
his reasons for refusing were exhausted; so that we naturally
expect to find him cheerfully yielding obedience to the will of
God. But no; faint-hearted and froward, praying and doubting
at the same time, he exclaimed: " 0 my Lord, send I pray thee
whom thou wilt send!"  This showed at once all that was in
his mind, and the festering unbelief, which had been hidden, unknown to him, beneath the outward covering of humility, now
came to a head.  But this is the way to a cure, first softening
applications, then the sharp lancet of the physician.  " Then,"
says the record, " the anger of the Lord was kindled" (8). But
this anger was still attended by the love which assists the weak.
Moses was told that Aaron, his brother, should be sent by Jehovah to meet him, and should stand by his side to assist him
in his arduous task.  The eloquence of Aaron would thus hide
his brother's want of the gift of speech, and supply the deficiency.  " He shall be thy mouth, and thou shalt be his God.
And now take the rod in thy hand, with which thou shalt work
miracles, and go." And Moses went (9).
(1). The name Horeb is applied in the Bible to the whole of
the mountains in the peninsula; Sinai, on the other hand, is the
name of the particular mountain, on which the law was delivered.
(See Vol. iii. ~ 8. 1).  The fact that the mountain, on which God
appeared to Moses, is here called " the mountain of God," is a
proof that the call of Moses took place on the very same spot
which was afterwards to be the scene of the calling of the people,
the conclusion of the covenant, and the giving of the latw. Even
now it was holy ground (chap. iii. 5); when Israel departed
from Egypt to offer sacrifice to the Lord in the desert, they had
a definite spot in view, and one which had been already appointed
by God. And in this consecrated spot they were to gain the a<s2




CALL OF' MOSES.                 203
surance, that as the call of Moses, which had previously taken
place there, had been attested by signs and wonders in Egypt, so
their own call would be attested by signs and wonders in the land
of Canaan.  As the spot, on which Moses was then feeding the
sheep, was one from which Sinai could be seen (chap. iii. 12), it
must have been either one of the side valleys (Wady Leja
and Wady Shoeib), which form the eastern and western boundaries, or the broad plain of Sebayeh to the south of the mountain.
This will appear from the further descriptions given at Vol. iii.
~ 6. The testimony of tradition is in favour of the Wady Shoeib
(i.e. Jethro-valley) on the eastern side of Sinai.
(2). It is very evident that the vision of the BRIER,WhiCh burned
but was not consumed, was not merely a 0avJarroT'v, but was
especially designed to be o-,uedov; in other words it was not
merely intended, that the fresh manifestation of God, which was
thus introduced, should be attested by the extraordinary character of the phenomenon, and its evidently supernatural cause,
but also that the meaning of the revelation to be made should be
symbolically represented by the phenomenon itself.  Had the
former been the only design, any extraordinary appearance would
have answered the purpose quite as well, and in that case the
selection of this, out of the one or two thousand means which
the Almighty had at command, would be perfectly arbitrary and
unimportant.  But where God works there can be nothing
arbitrary.
The divine miracle was followed by the divine address. They
must have stood in close connexion with each other. The address served to explain the meaning of the symbol; the symbol
was a visible representation of the substance of the address.
Not that the two necessarily cover and exhaust each other. A
symbol often reaches beyond the substance of the address which
accompanies it.  In a symbol the whole revelation is made
simultaneously, it represents in one complete picture, and from
one single point of view, all that is to be revealed. An address,
on the contrary, is a successive revelation, the substance of which
is gradually unfolded and explained.  This we shall find to be
the case here. The sign which Moses beheld was a picture of
the whole of that stage in the progress of revelation, which was
then about to commence. And it retained its validiity to the




204                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
end of that stage, whereas the words addressed to Moses in connexion with the sign, merely referred to the circumstances and
necessities belonging to the very commencement of this stage of
revelation.
There are two things requiring explanation in connexion with
this sign: viz. the bush and the fire. In the BRIER we have a
symbol of the people of Israel.  From this time till the cursing of
the fig-tree, which had no fruit on it but only leaves, the chosen
people of God are frequently and variously referred to, under the
figure of a bush or tree. Here they are represented as a low,
contemptible brier, in contradistinction to the tall majestic trees,
which proudly rear their heads to the clouds, and are gazed at
and admired by the world. Hence the brier was symbolical of
Israel, as a people despised by the world.  The FIRE is always
used in the Scriptures as a symbol of divine holiness. And this
is the case here; for the record expressly says that the presence
of God was made known in the fire: "the angel of the Lord
appeared to him in the flame of fire out of the midst of a bush"
(chap. iii. 2); God spake " out of the midst of the bush" (ver. 4);
Moses had to take off his shoes, because the place on which he
stood was rendered holy by this appearance (ver. 5); he " hid
his face, for he was afraid to look upon God" (ver. 6). The
burning brier, therefore, was a symbol of the community of God,
in which the holiness of God had its abode. The brier was
burning in the fire, but it was not consumed, although from its
nature it deserved to be consumed, and could easily be so. It
was a miracle that it was not consumed. And thus was it also
a miracle of mercy, that the holiness of God could dwell in a
sinful community without consuming it. But in the midst of
the thorns of the natural life of the community there was hidden
a noble, imperishable germ, namely, the seed of the promise,
which Jehovah himself' had prepared. It could not, indeed, be
set free without the pain of burning, but by that burning it was
made holy and pure. There was also another fact of great importance represented by this symbol, viz., that the fire of divine
holiness, which burned in Israel, without consuming it, served
also as an outward defence. Hitherto, every one who passed by
might ridicule, injure, or trample on the insignificant bush, but
henceforth whlloever touched it would burn his own fingers.  " I




CALL OF MLOSES.                  205
will be unto her a wallt of fire round about," said the Lord by
the prophet Zechariah (2. 4), " and will show my glory it the
mqidst of her."  Pharaoh was soon to findl this out.
The brier had not always been surrounded by the flames.
The timle had only just arrived, when the holiness of God was
about to condescend to dwell in Israel.  The words afterwards
spoken by God (ver. 12), informed Moses of the time when the
events, symbolized by that vision, would occur.  On that very
mountain, on which the miraculous sign appeared, (andl which
for that reason was called the mountain of God, chap. iii. 1),
the great miraculous fact which it represented was to be afterwards accolnplished, and to that end Moses was to bring the
people out of Egypt and conduct them thither.
This explanation of the vision is different from the traditional
one; and only Hofmnann supports it (Schriftbeweis i. 335).
Most commentators (including even Baucnigarten i. 1, p. 406),
explain the vision as referring not to the future condition of
Israel, into which it was to be first brought at Sinai, but to the
circumstances in which Israel had hitherto been placed, ancd was
still living in Egypt.  The fire is generally supposed to represent the affliction, which the people were enduring from the oppressions of Pharaoh, an affliction in which Israel was burning,
but was not consumed, was suffering pain, but for its good, since
by that means it was being purified and fitted for its future
destiny. This explanation is borne out by Deut. iv. 20, where
the sufferings of the Israelites in Egypt are compared to an iron
furnace. But as fire is introduced in innumerable passages, in
fact every where else, as a symbol of divine holiness, andl as the
fire which envelopes the bush is expressly described in this
passage as a manifestation of Gol, we must either give up the
reference to the afflictions in Egypt, or else identify those affictions with the fire of the holiness of God. The only way in
which the latter conclusion is arrived at, is by regarding the
afflictions as sent by God for the purification of Israel, although
in one sense they proceeded from Pharaoh.
But there are very grave difficulties in the way of this interpretation.  The attempted combination of the two points of
view is so forced and complicated, that even if there were
nothing else in the way, we should on that account alone feel
very great hesitation about giving it our support.  But, when




206                 ISRtAEL IN EGYPT.
we look at the design of the vision, it becomes at once apparent
that it is absolutely inadmissible. The vision was intended to
bring distinctly before the mind of Moses, not something present,
but something future; from the nature of the case it must have
been so, moreover it is expressly intimated in ver. 12.  Moses
did not require to be reminded of the misery of his people in
Egypt, or to have the afflictions which they were enduring
brought visibly before him; that fire was burning perceptibly
enough in his own life.  And even the information that Israel
was not to be consumed, but purified by this fire, had but little
connexion with the call, which Moses was about to receive.
What he actually required was, now that God had come down
to deliver}iis people, to have their future condition set before
him. There was no occasion to set before him the circumstances that had led to his mission; the design and issue of that
mission were what he wanted to know.
(3). The command to take off the shoes, was in accordance
with oriental views and customs which are still in force. As
shoes are worn in the East as a protection, not against cold, but
against dirt, the necessity for wearing them ceases where a place
is clean. Moreover, as the shoes are already defiled with dust,
if not with mud, by walking on the streets and roads, not only
would it be unnecessary to wear shoes in a clean place, but the
clean place itself would be thereby defiled. JHere, of course, the
removal of the shoes had a symbolical meaning. The respect
due from the feet to the clean place, represented the reverence,
with which the inward man should approach the Holy One. As
soon as Moses perceived that God was in the fire, he hid his
face; a sinful man cannot look openly and freely at the selfrevealing holiness of God, and therefore he shuts or hides his
eyes.
We must not overlook the fact that in this, the first revelation
that had been made for 400 years, God announced himself as
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  This name was, as it
were, a bridge, which spanned the vacant interval of 400 years
between Jacob and Moses, a bridge, by which the past was
linked with the present, and which gave to the present a hold
upon the promises, the lessons, and the results of the past. The
lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, constituted the first stage in
the history of the covenant. In each of these patriarchs the




CALL or MOSES.                  LO7
subjective, human side of the kingdom of God under the ancient
covenant was unfolded in a peculiar manner, and hence in each
of them, the presence and power of God were peculiarly attested.
Together, they formed a distinct and complete whole. The distinction, however, was merely temporary, the completeness
merely relative. It was only in the form of a family, that the
development of the covenant had attained distinction and completeness. As soon as the family had grown to a nation, the
covenant entered afresh upon its course of development, with
the same powers and tendencies as before, but on a larger scale
and with more abundant materials. All that God had effected
and promised during the first stage of the covenant, was summed
up in the name, " the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
This name was the inscription on the portal of the historical
development of the covenant in the form of a nation, and it continued to be the seal of that covenant, till the Old Testament
expanded into the New, till the covenant with one nation gave
place to the covenant with all, and the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, became the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ; in other words, until the time arrived, in which Abraham
ceased to be the rock whence the people of the covenant were
hewn, and Sarah the hole of the pit whence they were digged
(Is. li. 1, 2), and the new Israel found in Christ the author and
finisher of faith, and in the Spirit of God the fountain of life
(vid. Vol. i. ~ 48. 1).
(4). In ver. 12 we read: "This shall be a token unto thee,
that I have sent thee; when thou hast brought forth the people
out of Egypt, ye shall sacrifice to God Afonf this mountain."
We have already pointed out in the paragraph above, how an
event, which was not to happen till afterwards, was a token of'
assurance to Moses even at that time. But we cannot for a
moment doubt, that something more was intended than merely
to give to Moses a sign which should strengthen his faith, that
there was a highly important end to be answered by this sacrifice. Even in the presence of Pharaoh, the motive to be assigned
for the departure of the people was, that they might sacrifice to
their God in the desert. Every sacrifice presupposes an interruption of communion with God, which is to be restored and
renewed by the sacrifice offered. Now, even though it is possible
that sacrifices may have been continually offered by individuals




208                   ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
during the sojourn in Egypt, it is certain that the community
as a whole, as a united body, had never sacrificed for 400 years
(~ 17).  Hence this sacrifice which was represented as the
immediate object, the first-fruits of the deliverance, was the first
offering ever presented by the community, the first national
sacrifice.  But every first thing contains potentially the fulness
of all that comes afterwards; it is the type, representative, and
pledge of all that succeeds.  And if Israel, henceforth, was
related to God as a community, as an entire body, if it entered
into that communion with God, which is the object of sacrifice,
and persevered in such communion; the foundation of all this
was laid by the sacrifice at Sinai.  Hence, from the very outset
we must ascribe to this sacrifice an extraordinary meaning, a
meaning such as cannot be ascribed to any of the sacrifices,
which were subsequently offered during the same stage of the
history of revelation;-in a word, this was to be the sacrifice,
by which Israel was to become the people of God, the covenantsacrifice, by which the covenant, made with Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, was to be renewed, that it might be more fully and
gloriously developed.  And if, in accordance with the vision
which Moses saw, we expect to see Israel exalted to be a nation,
in which the holiness of God resided without consuming it, it
could only be by means of this sacrifice, that such an end would
be attained.
In ver. 18 we read that Moses was directed to say to Pharaoh: " Let us go three days' journey into the wilderness, that
we may sacrifice to Jehovah, our God." In these words we naturally suppose that Sinai was the place intended, for according to
ver. 12 it was there that the sacrifice was to be offered. But the
geography does not permit of such a supposition.  For Sinai is
150 miles from Suez, and even a caravan, with the greatest possible
speed, would be unable to accomplish so much as this in three
days. It must, therefore, be admitted that permission was to
be asked of Pharaoh, not to go to Sinai, but merely to cross the
borders of Egypt. The request was represented to him as indispensable, on the ground that the sacrifices of the Israelites were
an abomination to the Egyptians (chap. v. 3, viii. 25 seq.). Still
God had already expressed his will, that the sacrifice should not be
offered in any place which they might choose in the desert immediately bordering upon the frontier of Egypt, but on Sinai, which




CALL OF' MOSES.                 209
was at least seven days' journey from the Egyptian boundary.
Moreover, we learn from ver. 8, that God had come down to
lead Israel altogether out of Egypt, and bring them back to the
land of their fathers' pilgrimage, that he might assign them
this land as a permanent possession and abode; and yet Moses
was merely to request permission of Pharaoh to go away to a
distance of three days' journey at the most; a request, which of
course tacitly involved a promise to return when the sacrifice
had been offered. Are we then to regard this as an intentional
and dishonourable deception of Pharaoh on the part of both God
and Moses?  By no means.  It would certainly have been a
deception, or would have become one, if Pharaoh had acceded to
the request in good faith, and had given them permission to go a
three days' journey and no more; and if, in spite of their promise,
and without further permission, they had marched away to
Canaan, or everl if from the first they had intended this.  But
such was not the case. Pharanoh, as was foretold in ver. 19, did
not accede to the request of Moses. And as he annulled the
request by his refusal, so eo ipso he annulled the ldromise implied in that request. It is true that he afterwards permitted
the Israelites to depart; but he was forced to do so by the
plagues, with which the God of Israel smote him, and his permission had no connection, therefore, with their friendly petition.
Hence, when once Jehovah had placed himself in a hostile relation to Pharaoh, the amicable negotiations having entirely failed,
the first limited and conditional request had no longer any force,
and even Pharaoh himself, when utterly defeated, gave an unconditional and not a conditional permission to depart (vici. ~
35. 2). God could foresee that this would be the ultimate issue
of the whole transaction; and on the ground of this foreknowledge
he announced to Moses, that Sinai would be the spot on which
the appointed sacrifice would be offered, and Canaan their final
and permanent destination.  But although at the viery outset he
made known to his friend and servant Moses the whole of his
design, it did not follow that it was necessary to exhibit it to
Pharaoh also.  And it was mercy towards Pharaoh, which
dictated a different course.  If Pharaoh had known at the
outset the whole of the divine demand, which was eventually to
be made upon him, it would have been an infinitely more difficult matter for him to prepare his heart to obey the will of God,
VOL. I.                                    Q)




210                 ISIS.AItEL IN EGYPT.
than it was under the plan adopted by the wisdom and condescension of God which commenced by making known but a
small part of the entire demnand. If we could imagine Pharaoh
yielding to the first, partial request made by 3Moses, of course
the second and more unpalatable half of the demland would still
remain to be made. But as faithfulness in little prepares for
faithfulness in much; so would the obedience manifested to thLe
will of God in that which was least, have been a stepping-stone
to obedience in something greater, and God would have given
him grace to overcome the resistance and selfishness of his own
will.
(5). The conversation between God and Moses, this divine
" I will not let thee go," forms a counterpart to the human " I
w;ll not let thtee go," which is first met with in its original force
in the case of Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 26). The whole conversation
is related in such a manner, that it carries in an eminent degree
the pledge of its own authenticity within itself. Where can we
find a legend in the whole range of' mythology, which will bear
comparison with the narrative before us?  Where does fiction
present a similar psychological picture, with such striking scenes
and yet such deep, psychological truth? The only object of a
myth is to glorify the hero; he is without a flaw, a hero from
top to toe, from the cradle to the grave, with superabundant
force and confident elation at the beginning, with irresistible,
irrepressible power in the middle, and triumphant power at the
end.  We never meet with a myth, which imputes to its hero
such timidity and despondency, as was here displayed by the
greatest, the most celebrated, and the most powerful hero of the
people of Israel. Look, for example, at the full and elaborate
way in which the weakness and faint-heartedness of Moses are
here described, the evident interest with which the author dwells
upon them, as though he could hardly turn away from the subject. How striking and unusual, and yet how deep and true
are the lineaments of this picture from life! Observe the progressive steps in the psychological development, how appropriate
they evidently are! When Jehovah first gives him the commission, Moses shrinks from the weight of the enormous burden,
which is laid upon his shoulders, and which he is not strong
enough to bear. But he does not unconditionally decline the
commission, on the contrary he fancies the future already




CALL OF MOSES.                   211
present, transports himself to the circumstances in which he will
be placed; and counts the cost, to see whether he has enough to
meet the demands. Then doubts and fears, wants and weaknesses,
start up on every side.  But Jehovah has an answer to every
doubt, a promise for every fear, an inexhaustible supply for every
want, and divine strength for every h,:man weakness, which he
lays in the scale. We look with heartfelt joy at the manner in
which one fear after another is taken away from the trembling
Moses. And when at length his fears are all exhausted, and he
has no more excuses left, we expect to find him yield, and to
hear at length his "yea and Amen."  But no, hitherto his
refusal has been conditional, but now it is unconditional.  All
that God has spoken, and promised, and done, appears to be
thrown away, and to have been utterly in vain.
How unexpected and improbable does this turn appear; and
yet how true and necessary it really is! So long as the refusal
of the flesh could give reasons for its opposition to the demands
of the spirit, it appeared to be somewhat justifiakble. And an
inexperienced observer might fancy that as soon as every doubt
had been entirely removed, and every fear had been set aside,
the will would yield itself captive, that in fact it could not do
anything else.  But whoever has looked into the dark recesses
of the human heart, knows well that it is there that the most
severe and violent opposition commences, namely, the opposition
of capriciousness and self-will. "I cannot" then comes forward
openly and without reserve in its true character, as an unvarnished " I will not."  And thus the most improbable of all the
steps is that in which there is the deepest truth.
Hitherto, when all that had been said was, " I cannot," the
mercy of God replied to the objection, with inexhaustible longsuffering and patience, " thou canst in my power," but now it
meets the insolent " I will not," with a determined " thou shalt,"
and this is the moment of decision.  As faith has to constrain
God, (Gen. xxxii. 26; Matt. xi. 12; Luke xi. 8, xviii. 6 sqq.),
that the mercy of God may break forth from righteousness; so
does God put restraint upon man, that the germ of faith, which is
imprisoned in unbelief (Mark ix. 24), may be set free and expand
in all its glory. And this was necessarily the case with Moses.
That which was least expected was just the most necessary step
of all.
o2




212                  ISRAEL lN EG(YPT.
A certain amount of enthusiasm, which is sometimes regarded
as inspiration, the confidence of self-assurance, a superabundance
of power, insensibility to difficulties, and the boldness which
rushes headlong into dangers, all these befit the hero of this
world. But for men, who are to do the work of God, the heroes
who are to fight in His cause, not only are they unsuitable, but
they actually disqualify them for their vocation. Forty years
before, Moses possessed them all in rich abundance.  But at that
time, God found him unfitted for the work he was destined to
perform. Modesty and circumspection, humility and self-abasement, consciousness of one's own weakness and insufficiency, are
the indispensable conditions of all employment in the kingdom
of God, for they are the vehicles of divine inspiration and wisdom, of divine power and strength.  Therefore it is that the
apostle says: " when I am weak, then am I strong" (2 Cor. xii.
10). To this weakness M3Ioses had been trained in the desertschool. But the perverseness of human nature was again manifested in the fact, that even in this he went to the extreme. He
overstepped the boundary between negative weakness, which
places no confidence in self, and is the weakness that God desires
and demands, and that positive weakness, which not only renounces all self-confidence, but cherishes a want of confidence in
the power of God. Thus he went from one extreme to the very
opposite. But the discipline of God can reclaim a man from
his wandering to the right, just as well as when he wanders to
the left.
We may see how necessary it was, that all the weakness
and faint-heartedness, the incredulity and unbelief which Moses
displayed, should be brought out and overcome before he entered
upon his mission, when we consider how serious and dangerous
the slightest manifestation of it at a later period would have
been, whether in the presence of Pharaoh or of the people.
Then the reproach of Moses would have been the reproach of
God, and his fall would have ruined his work. It was necessary
that he should stand before God weak and fainthearted, despairing and of little faith, in order that he might be strengthened by God to stand firm before Pharaoh and the people, as a
divine hero possessed of undaunted courage and unshaken confidence.
(6). It is apparent from  the etymology, that -)_,.N.. I




CALL OF MrOSES.                   213,;'I, the name which God announced to Moses (in ver. 14), as
the name by which he was to make him known to the people as
their deliverer, was merely an alteration and explanation of the
name Jehovah, which was so well known to the people; and this
is put entirely beyond the reach of doubt by Ex. vi. 1 sqq. We
have already entered into some explanation of these two passages
in ~ 5, and in vol. i. ~ 13; but we have a few additional remarks
to make here.  The different theories respecting the origin of this
name, which have been based upon the assumption that it is of
foreign origin, have been for ever refuted by Tlholuck (fiber den
Ursprung des Namnens Jehova, in his vermischte Schriften i.
377 —405), and Renystenberg (Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 235 sqq.
cf. Gesenius, thesaurus, p. 576 sqq.), such, for example, as that
the Egyptians invented the name of the deity by combining together the seven vowels Ierlcova; that the name originated
in Phoenicia, India, or China; and again that it was identical
with Jupiter, Jovis, &c. —The derivation of the name from;,';1 —1-,7, which is based upon Ex. iii. 14, is still firmly
maintained by every commentator, in spite of Ewald's curious
objections (Vol. i. ~ 13. 1).-The superstitious fear with which the
Jews refrained from uttering the quadriliteral word  cp (call
ing it in consequence Vtj-)i   -,    nomen separatum,  ovotLa
aw1),  ras founded upon Lev. xxiv. 16:; ni-5 = j
inet F'hj3,  Now, the verb:!~], by itself' does not mean to
blaspheme, to curse --::1, but to utter; still the context shows
plainly enough what kind of utterance is referred to, viz., utters
ance in the way of blasphemy (Buxtorf, lex. talmud. p. 1847,
and Hengstenberg, Pentateuch vol. i. 245).  The frequent occurrence of the name of Jehovah in the composition of proper names
is a proof that no such fear existed in Old Testament times. It
probably arose shortly after the return from the captivity.  For
it must have prevailed as early as the date of the Septuagint
translation, where the name Jehovah is always rendered by
Kv'pto.  Even the apocryphal writers of the Old Testament do
not venture to use the name.  Philo (de vita Mos.) describes it
as a name, o [JOvoLSb TOts cBra Kat 7yX-rrav oodt4a KeiaOapt.evoLt
oette~ aIco'veLv cat Xhe-yv  Ev ay-iotS, aXX6 8' o68vu  T Trapdara'
ov3ato, and Josephus says (Ant 2. 12. 4):'O  Reo5  a;v'T
G1/tal ve)L T7'l) EaUTOV 7trFpOrT7-/plt...  7T'Ept?,( 0,1 moti




214                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
06 At eii'Ov.  In the Talmud we read: Etiam qui pronunciat
Nomen suis litteris, non est ei pars in seculo futuro. Miaimonides
(foiore Nevochim i. 61) states:'" Nomen hoc non pronunciabatur nisi in Sanctuario et quidem a sacerdotibus Dei sanctificatis
in benedictione sacerdotali et a pontifice ipso die jejunii.  But
after the death of Simeon the just even this custom was abolished, and henceforth the substitution of n9?B was required in
temple, as it had long been outside, ne illud nomen disceret
homo, qui non esset honestus et bonae existimationis" (Jad
chasaka, xiv. 10).
In consequence of the substitution of:tS  (KvpLo9s) for;I;, which had taken place as early as the date of the Septuagint, the vowel points of the former were attached to the latter,
when points were introduced into the text, and thus;n5  became a, Keri perpetzum.  But notwithstanding the fact that
this is evident and indisputable, there have even been Christian
theologians, who have maintained with great pertinacity that
~Th^n was the correct and original pointing.  The last who
-r:
asserted this was J. F. v. nMeyer (Blitter fiir h6here Wahrheit
xi. 306; cf. Stier Lehrgeb. d. hebr. Grammatik i. 327). Reland
made a collection of all the treatises on the subject that were in
existence in his time, whichever side they advocated; (see his
Decas exercitationum de vera pronunciatione nominis Jehlova.
1707). In the preface to his work he gives it as his opinion, that
we have not the original pointing.  Hengstenberg has, since then,
published a most elaborate defence of the correct view, (Genuineness of the Pentateuch, Vol. i., 231 sqq. trans.).  The following
points are especially decisive: 1, Wherever: s is joined with;,nW~, the latter has the pointing of C'o'n; 2, whenever,-win
occurs with the prefixes n, 17, I, ), n, they do not take chirek
(,ide, &c. like -,"'mT.3.) butpcatach, except in the case ofr  which
takes Zere, just as they do when joined to Am; 3, when Am
is followed by one of the letters n D g' ~:, the latter takes a
Dagesh lene, though it could not take it with the reading;-,~,
which ends in a litteraquiescens.  Moreover the word;~;,  is
beyond the reach of any admissible etymology; for the favourite
explanation, given by the earlier theologians, that,hpt is a composite word formed from the future, present, and preterite of




CALL OF MOSES.                   215
the verb 1,"B  (a representing the future, Ad the participle,;
the preterite), can only be regarded as a curiosity belonging to
the childish days of Hebrew Grammar.  Such an etymology is
impossible according to the rules of the language, and is not sustained, as some suppose, by Rev. i. 4.  We subscribe to the
opinion that the description there given of God, O  vW Kaib 6 7v tcat
6 CpX6,wevos, is as a paraphrastic rendering of the name Jehovah;
but the ground for deducing all three from the word Jehovah,
is to be found solely and exclusively in the imperfect formation
of the name, and this reason is amply sufficient. —,,-~ is, no
doubt, formed by changing the first person imperfect.~7N (Ex.
iii. 14) into the third person; or rather the explanatory word -,'-,N
in Ex. iii. 14 is merely m;,-I, changed into the first person. We
have already observed in Vol. i. ~ 13. 1, that among the different
pointings that are grammatically admissible the reading -]^
is most probably the genuine one.  And this agrees with Theodoret's remark in reference to Ex. vi.: KaXoiao-t 8    5 ZlaTo    tape'TaL iuv'IaiC3,'IoV8a&OL   8'Aia.  The latter form  is merely
~3~ written in Greek characters. It is well worthy of observation
that the name kno  is founded not upon the more modern form,PFT, but upon the form i,;   which was already antiquated when
the Pentateluch was composed; for it follows from this, that if
the Pentateuch dates from the time of Moses or Joshua,;~
must have been an ancient, pre-M3osaic name.  If we consider
the dignity of the verb,f  (essence, being) on the one hand,
and that of the imperfect sense on the other (cf. Ewald's ausfiihrl. Lehrbuch ~ 136), it will be at once apparent that the
name;,     means the existing one, whose operations have commenced and still continue, and who permits us continually to
look for more glorious manifestations of his existence (vid. Vol.
i. ~ 13. 1).
We have already entered into a thorough discussion of Ex. vi.
3, 4, at ~ 5. 1, 2, and have shown that the words, " I am Jehovah, and appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as [S,
~~,W  but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them," rdo
not imply that the name Jehovah was altogether unknown till
then. And we have also fully explained there, why, even assuming the correctness of the supplement-theory, the author of the
so-called ground-work naturally avoided the use of the name,




216                 ISRAEL ITZ EGYPT.
Jehovah until Ex. vi., whilst the writer of the supplementary
parts employed it without hesitation. As proofs of the incorrectness of Ewacd's opinion, that the name was first made known
to the people by Moses, but was used proleptica]ly by the (sole)
author of Genesis, we may mention the following arguments, in
addition to those already adducedl: 1. The name occurs in preMosaic surnames. Among these we reckon the name of the
mountain lioriah in Gen. xxii. 14 (cf. Vol. i. ~ 65. 1), that of
Jochebed, the mother of Moses, Ex. vi. 20, and the name Bithjah
(1 Chr. iv. 18 cf. ~ 15. 3). The comparatively rare occurrence
of the name Jehovah, in the proper names of the Mosaic and
pre-Mosaic times, may be explained simply enough, from the
fact that the name had certainly not taken so firm a hold of the
minds of the people, and was not so fully understood before the
time of Moses as afterwards (this is evidently implied in Ex. vi.
3). 2. The name Jehovah is formed from the verb An1s, which
was an obsolete form in the time of Moses (Ex. iii. 14). 3. The
name occurs in Jacob's blessing, which is a pre-Mosaic document (Gen. xlix. 18). 4. The words of God in Ex. iii. 14 do not
by any means indicate that he was about to reveal a new name,
which had hitherto been quite unknown, but are evidently
explanatory of a name already known, whose depth and fulness
had never yet been completely exhausted.  The latest attempt
to explain the passage has been made by J. Richers (die Sch6pfungs-, Paradieses-, und Siindfluths-geschichte, Lpz. 1854, p.
453 sqq.), but we cannot adopt his explanation. He thinks
that the frequency with which the passages are altered in
Hebrew, the same pronouns and verbs being employed with
reference to entirely different persons in one and the same discourse, justify the conclusion that D~L,  "to them," in the
words of God, "but by my name Jehovah was I not known to
them," does not refer to the patriarchs and the families mentioned
in the book of Genesis at all, but to the Israelites who were
groaning beneath the Egyptian yoke.  In his opinion God was
known to the patriarchs as Jehovah, but their descendants in
Egypt lost both the name and the knowledge of Jehovah; they
neither knew him, nor lived under his especial protection and rule.
The name Jehovah was (or rather became) undoubtedly a new
one then, but only in the sense in which Christ said (John xiii.
34): " A new commandment give I unto youl," whereas he




CALL OF MOSES.                   217
merely repeated one of the primary commandments, which we
find in the Old Testament, and meet with on every hand
in the laws of Moses. It was a commandment, however, the
fulness and depth, the meaning, force, and value of which were
first unfolded by the gospel.  And just as the greatest act of
love, which the world ever witnessed, provided a new field for
the exemplification of this command, in greater glory than was
possible under the law, and thus the old commandment became
a new one; so did the new act of God, in the redemption of Israel
from Egypt, furnish a new field in which the ancient name of
God struck fresh and deeper roots, and thus the ancient name
became a new olle.
(7). Three miraculous signs were given to Moses, by which lie
was to legitimate himlself as a messenger from God, first before
the people, and then in the presence of Pharaoh, in order that
it -might be evident that he had not come empty, but had been
sent by God and filled by Him with divine power.  It was not
stated at the outset, that the signs were meant for Pharaoh as well
as for the people (this first occurs in chap. iv. 21). All that was
required here was to remove the difficulty suggested in chap. iv.
1: "The people will not believe me."  Moreover, there were
only two of the signs, which were intended and adapted to be
performed in the presence of Pharaoh.  The gift of miracles
was also communicated with especial reference to Moses himself.
His doubts and incredulity were to be overcome by the consciousness, that he was the possessor of such powers; and the
miracles themselves were of such a nature, as to furnish a type
and guarantee of the progress and success of his mission. Baum-.
garten (Comm. i. 1, p. 415) is on a wrong track, when he looks
upon the three signs, which Moses received, as intended for the
people alone, and denies that they had any reference to iloses
himself. It is not true that the sign referred to in chap. iii. 12,
which could only be witnessed in the future, was sufficient for
Moses, and that the people required more visible signs, because
they were more completely under the dominion of the senses
than he was.  Had this been the case there would have been no
necessity for the signs to be performed, as they now were, before
the eyes of Moses.  But the continued refusal of Moses proved,
that the sign referred to in chap. iii. 12 was too spiritual for him,
and that he needed a present sign of a more tangible character.




218                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
The miracle of the burning bush was, as we have seen, not
merely a OavlaaTP6v, but also a most significant orV/e-ov (note
2); and in the same manner the three miracles which Moses
was commissioned to perform, must have been significant signs,
intended as revelations from God, adapted to the senses of all
concerned, of Moses as well as of the people of Israel and the
king of Egypt, and designed to convey to the heart of each, just
so much as he required to know.  For this reason, as Baumgarten has well observed, we find in chap. iv. 8 voices ascribed
to the signs.
The first sign was as follows. At the command of God, Moses
threw his staff upon the ground.  The stqff became a serpent,
and Moses fled from it. But Jehovah told him to take it by the
tail; and on his doing so, it became a staff in his hand once
more.  The staff was the shepherd's crook, with which he had
hitherto conducted the flock of Jethro.  Hence it represented his
vocation as a shepherd.  This he was to throw away, i.e., he was
to give up his calling and follow a new one. But the staff which
he had thrown away became a serpent, and rMoses fled before it.
His vocation hitherto had been a poor and despised one; but it
was also quiet, peaceful, and free from danger.  When this
was given up, he was to be exposed to dangers of such magnitude, that even his life would be threatened.  3Moses could foresee all this, and hence the obstinacy with which he refused to
enter upon his new vocation.  But at the word of God he laid
hold of the snake, and it became a staff in his hand once more.
This showed that, by the power of God, he would be able to
overcome the dangers that would surround him, when he relinquished his present calling.  By overpowering the snake he
recovered his staff, but it was no longer his staff; it was the rod
of God (iv. 20), and with the staff thus altered he was to perform the work entrusted to him (iv. 17).  It was still a shepherd's staff, and his new vocation was a shepherd's calling.
From being a shepherd of Jet-hro's sheep he was to become the
shepherd of God's sheep, the leader and lawgiver of the people ofGod. And he became so, by overcoming the dangers which
intervened between these two different employments.  We must
also observe, that this was the rod with which he was to bring
the plagues upon Egypt; and therefore it was the retributory
counterpart to the rod with which the Egyptian taskmnasters hbad




CALL OF MOSES.                   219
beaten the Israelites (chap. v. 14; vid. Ilengstenberg, Beitrdge
iii. 523).  As soon, then, as Moses appeared before the people
and performed this sign, it showed them, first, that the dangers
to which the mission of Moses would expose them-dangers
which they soon experienced (chap. v.) —would be overcome;
and secondly, that the staff of shepherd and ruler, with which
Moses was to lead and govern them, was not assumed without
authority, but given to him by God, and therefore the question
could not be asked, as it was before, "who made thee a prince
and a judge over us" (chap. ii. 14)?  He afterwards performed
the same miracle in the presence of Pharaoh (vii. 10 sqq.). We
shall see by and by whltL was its meaning then (~ 24. 2).
We come now to the second sign. Moses put his hand into
his bosom, and it became LEPROUS like snow.  But as soon as
he put it into his bosom a second time, it became CLEAAN and
whole as before.  The bosom is the place into which the hand is
put, to shelter it from cold and other evils; in the warmth of the
bosom it is protected and cherished as in a mother's lap.  But
behold in that very place, in which we expect it to be protected
and warmed, the hand of )Moses became leprous.  Leprosy was
impurity in its worst possible form; and for this reason the leper
was put away and banished from the society of his fellow-citizens.
These data, which are indisputable, are amply sufficient to explain the sign.  That which happened to the hand of' ioses was
a picture of what had happened, and was still to happen, to the
people of Israel. By going down to Egypt, the Israelites had
been preserved firoml the injurious influence of Canaanitish customs (~ 1. 7).  Through the favour of the first Pharaohs, Egypt
was undoubtedly a hiding-place, in which the family of Jacob
had been cherished and preserved, when it was distressed both
in body and mind.  BRut there had been a change in both the
men and the times, and Israel was enslaved, despised, and held
in abomination in the landc of Egypt.  When Israel departed
from Egypt, he was like a'homeless leper. But Jehovah led him
once more to a hiding-place, where he was cleansed from the
leprosy which he had brought with him from Egypt, and where
he was set apart as a holy people and a priestly nation (xix. 6).
It is very easy to explain why this sign was not exhibited before
Pharaoh as well as the others (chap. vii.). The thing signified
was of too internal and spiritual a nature, it was too closely con



220                   ISRAEL IN EGYPT,
nected with the counsel of God concerning his people to be appropriately displayed to Pharaoh.  The objects indicated by this
sign, were such as could only be treated of between God and his
people.
The third sign belonged to a totally different sphere. It is
clearly and expressly separated and distinguished from the other
two. Moreover, it was not manifested on this occasion, even to
the eyes of Moses; it could only be seen in Egypt.  Moses was
directed, in the event of the people disbelieving the first two
signs, to take some water onut of the stream (the Nile), and pour
it upon the earth, where it would be turned to blood. The
reason that in this instance Moses only received a command
and a promise, and that the sign was not actually accomplished
before his eyes, is not to be sought in the fact that there was no
water near.  The whole force of this sign depended upon the
water being taken from the stream, i.e. fiom the Nile.  This
sign, as will afterwards appear, Moses was also to perform in the
presence of Pharaoh, but on an incomparably larger scale. It
was then not merely a handful of water which was affected, but
the whole body of water, when touched by the rod of Moses,
was turned into blood (vii. 17 sqq.); for in this instance it was
not merely a sign for Pharaoh, but a 2plague and judgment upon
the land of Egypt (vid. ~ 26. 1).  To enter fully into the
meaning of this sign, we must remember what the Nile was to
the Egyptians.  It was the source of all the wealth and fertility
of the land of Egypt, and was therefore worshipped as a god.
With the same rod, which God had placed in the hand of
Moses, that he mlight tend and lead the Israelites, he was also
to overthrow the gods of Egypt, and demonstrate their utter
weakness in comparison with the power of the God he worshipped.
That which brought a blessing to Egypt was turned by Moses
into a curse; and that which had been the object of veneration
and worship was made an object of disgust and abhorrence.
Moses was first of all to show to his people that he possessed
this power, by taking a handful of water out of the Nile; but
to Pharaoh he was to demonstrate that God was in earnest in
his determination to smite the gods of Egypt, by corrupting the
whole of the river.
Thus did God furnish his servant with three signs.  They
were all related, each in its own way, to the work which he hadl
2




CALL OF MOSES.                  221
to perform.  The number three is the mark of perfection and
completeness, an indication that the process of development is at
an end, and the idea embodied is fully manifested. Hence the
three miraculous signs were proofs, that the miraculous power of
God would be put forth in all its filness through the instrumentality of Mloses. A fourth sign Israel could not and durst
not demand, without convicting itself of obdurate unbelief. But
in this case it was necessary, that with the triple sign there
should also be progress and a culminating point in the manifestation of the idea. And our interpretation of the signs exhibits this. There were three objects upon which the power of
God was to be exerted: Loses, who was appointed to be the
leader and shepherd of Israel; the people of Israel, who were
to be cleansed from their leprosy and made a holy priestly nation; and Egypt, which was now to discover the impotence of
its gods. There was a special sign, containing a distinct intimation, for each of these; and thus the idea was actually exhibited
in the whole course of its development. Even the order in which
the signs occurred, is thus shown to have been both significant
and necessary.  No other order would have harmonized with
the natural develolpment and the idea.
There is one more point, and a very essential one, to which
we have still to refer. It has already been frequently observed,
that Moses was the first prophet sent by God, and more especially
the first worker of' miracles in the history of the world. We
refer the reader to our remarks in ~ 6. 1, on the absence of the
gifts of prophecy and miracles during the pre-Mosaic age. In
accordance with those remarks, we discover here an essential
advance in the course of the kingdom of God upon earth, and
the arrival of a turning-point in its history.  Hitherto the
covenant works of God and man, though constantly related to
each other, had been kept more distinct the one from the other.
The union of the divine and human, which is the true characteristic of the history, and the perfect realization of which in the
person of the God-man was foreshadowed from the first, had
never before been displayed in such a way through the instrumentality of a man, expressly called and fitted for the purpose
of manifesting the word and power of God. In this respect,
therefore, Moses was the.first type of Christ, the God-man.
(8). When Moses complained of his heavy tongue and his want




222                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
of eloquence,-faults the removal of which he could see no reason
to anticipate, notwithstanding the call that he had received,the words do not, in our opinion, denote that he stammered, as
some commentators suppose.  Moses said that he was not a
man of words, his mouth was not fitted for addressing others.
And Jehovah replied, " Did not I make man's mouth?"  This
answer implied a promise, that a gift of grace should make up
for the lacking gift of nature; and the subsequent history of
Moses' career contains the proof that the promise was fulfilled
(compare ver. 15, " I will be with thy mouth and with his mouth,
and will teach you what ye shall do"). But notwithstanding
this promise, Moses replied: " send, Lord, whom thou wilt
send." The difficulty arising from the fact that he was not a
man of words, was removed by the promise of God; but Moses
could not fully enter into the meaning of the promise, or place
implicit confidence in it.  Jehovah, therefore, referred him to
the eloquence of his brother Aaron, who was to be always at his
side when engaged in the duties of his office. I cannot persuade
myself that M. Baumgarten (i. 1 p. 418) and 0. v. Gerlach (i.
p. 213 seq.) are right in the inference which they draw from the
passage before us: viz. that it was the original intention of God
that Moses should stand alone in delivering, conducting, and
organizing the people, and should even hold the office of High
Priest as well; but that he forfeited the honour by his refusal,
and had now to share with Aaron both the office and the glory.
There is no reference at all to the high priesthood here. Aaron
was to be Moses' interpreter; this is stated in ver. 16, " he shall
be thy spokesman unto the people, and he shall be thy mouth,
and thou shalt be his God," and in chap. vii. 1, 2, " Aaron shall
be thy prophet, and shall speak eunto Pharaoh all that I command thee."  There is nothing else referred to here. And this
office of Aaron does not seem to have lasted long.  It served
for a time to remove the doubts and difficulties of Moses,
and to sustain and help him in his first appearance before the
people and Pharaoh. But when once Moses had discovered that
the grace and gifts of God rendered him mighty in word and
deed (Acts vii. 22), he stood no longer in need of another's
mouth; henceforth he was his own. It was at a later period
that Aaron received the call to the priesthood, and even then
the arrangement was not of such a nature as that Moses relin



CALL OF MOSES.                  223
quished anything in consequence of his brother's call, or in any
way shared his office and his honours with Aaron. Even in the
capacity of high priest Aaron was eunder MIoses, and did not stand
in an independent position by his side. Moses still continued to
be Aaron's God, and Aaron the interpreter of Moses. It was this
which constituted the peculiarity of Moses' position, a position
which has no parallel in the Old Testament (Vol. iii., ~ 33. 4);
he stood entirely alone as the founder and mediator of the ancient
covenant just as Christ was alone as the founder and mediator of
the new; though Moses and the ancient covenant were but feeble
and imperfect types and copies of Christ and the new (cf. ~ 11).
The expression in ver. 16, "he thy mouth, thou his God"
scarcely requires an explanation. As the prophet stood in such
a relation to God, that he only spake what God put into his
mouth, so was it to be with Aaron and Moses. Moses was the
inspiring God of Aaron's prophetic activity.  Aaron was the
organ and representative of Moses, as Moses was the organ and
representative of God. Compare chap. vii. 1, 2, "behold, I have
made thee a God to Pharaoh, and Aaron shall be thy prophet," &c.
Simultaneously with the call of Moses, a violent agitation
took place among the people, by which they were prepared for
his mission. Here was an exhibition of the great and secret
power of sympathy, a vague presentiment, in many perhaps
a conscious anticipation, that a turning point was approaching,
and that the time of deliverance was at hand.  The divine
promise to Abraham  (Gen. xv. 13, 14): "They shall afflict
them four hundred years, and afterward shall they come out
with great substance," was probably associated with this presentiment, and served to explain it. The fact that there was
such a movement among the people, we infer from the people's
fervour in prayer, to which reference is made in chap. ii. 23
and iii. 7, but more especially from the impulse which constrained
Aaron to go and seek out his brother in his exile (iv. 14);
probably for the sake of consulting him, possibly to urge him
to return to Egypt. It is not likely that the people in Egypt
had entirely forgotten Moses, or that they had altogether relinquished the hopes, which the marvellous events of his life had
apparently justified them in cherishing. It is even possible that
Aaron may have been charged with a commission from a select
body of men from among the people, who had already drawn




2,24                ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
up plans of escape, and were desirous of seeing Moses at the
head of their enterprise.
FIRST APPEARANCE OF MOSES IN EGYPT.
~ 21. (Ex. iv. 18-31).-Moses at once obtained leave of
absence from his father-in-law.  He said nothing to him about
what had occurred at Horeb (~ 19. 8); but merely expressed a
desire to visit his relations in Egypt. He then set off upon his
journey with his wife and children. —The intercourse between
God and Moses was uninterruptedly maintained, after the first
appearance of God at Mount Horeb. Even on the road Moses
was not without divine encouragement.  He received further
instructions as to his future interview with Pharaoh.  "Israel
is my first-born son," said Jehovah. Upon this Moses was to
found his demand upon the king of Egypt, and also the threat,
that Pharaoh's refusal should be punished with the death of
his first-born son (1). He was further reminded once more,
that he had to expect the most obstinate resistance on the part
of the king (vid. chap. iii. 19, sqq.). It would be to no purpose,
that he would perform before him all the miracles which
Jehovah had commissioned him to work. Nevertheless there
was no reason why Moses should be afraid of this opposition on
the part of the king, for Jehovah had already taken it into
account in his counsels.  In fact Jehovah had willed this
resistance, and was bringing it about as a judgment upon
Pharaoh, for the greater glory of his own name, not only in the
sight of the Israelites and Egyptians, but in that of all the
nations round about.  " But I," said He to Moses, "but I will
harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go" (2). Thus
Jehovah prepared himself for judgment. It was right, however,
that judgment should begin at the house of God (1 Pet. iv. 17).
The demand of Jehovah upon Pharaoh was founded upon the
fact, that Israel was his first-born son. Israel had become so




FIRST APPEARANCE OF MOSES.              2'25
by the election of Abraham, and by the covenant with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, which was now to be renewed and extended,
and to enter upon a higher stage in its development.  Circumcision had been instituted as the sign of this covenant. And
yet Moses, who was to contend for the covenant, had broken it
himself, for his youngest son was still uncircumcised.  In the
weakness of his heart he had yielded to the haughty spirit of
his wife, who from a false maternal tenderness, and a disregard
to the religious institutions of Israel, had refused her consent to
the bloody operation.  As Moses was now returning from his
exile to enter upon the duties of his vocation in Egypt, he found
himself in similar circumstances to those in which Jacob was
placed, when he returned from his exile in Mesopotamia to the
land of Canaan, to enter upon the work of his life (vol. i. ~ 80, 4).
The relation in which Moses stood to God was, like Jacob's, not
a pure one. In his case there was also a disturbing element,
which had to be removed, before Jehovah could acknowledge
him entirely and without reserve. And it was necessary that
this should be removed, before Moses entered the land of Egypt,
in which he was called to labour. Jehovah, the friend and
protector of Moses, still found in him reasons for anger and
enmity.  When Moses, therefore, was stopping at an inn on the
road, Jehovah met him and was about to kill him. Moses at once
discovered the cause, either because his own conscience accused
him, or else from some intimation of his guilt, with which
the hostile encounter of Jehovah was accompanied.  Zipporah
then took a stone-knife, and circumcised her son, and in the excitement of passion threw the foreskin at her husband's feet. (3)
The way was now clear, and the first intimation that the favour
of God had been restored, was the arrival of Aaron, who had
been sent by Jehovah, and met his brother at Horeb, the mount
of God.  It was probably from this spot that Moses sent back
his wife and children to his father-in-law (Ex. xviii. 2) (4).
VOL. II.                                    P




22f6                 TSRAEL IN EGYPT.
The two brothers then proceeded to Egypt, where they called
together the elders, and having performed the miracles in
attestation of their mission, annolnced to them the words of
God. The people believed, and bowed their heads and worshipped (5).
(1). Israel is Jehovah's first-born son (iv. 22).  id. Baumgarten justly complains, that commentators have shown such a
disposition to explain these words away, and to regard them as
indicating nothing more than the preference of God for Israel,
which resembled the love that a father generally bears to his
first-born son, above all the rest of his children. " If," as he
truly says, " Jehovah calls himself the father to Israel, we must
understand these words as referring to some fcct, which is to be
regarded as the generation of Israel. But we cannot possibly
concur with him in his opinion, that this fact is to be found in the
physical generation of Isaac, which resulted, not from the power
of nature, but from the power of grace. Shortly afterwards (i. 1
p. 425) Bac6mgarten correctly observes, that the expression, firstborn son, has reference to the Gentiles; since the term first-born
implies a contrast to those who are born afterwards, and by the
latter we must necessarily understand the Gentile nations.  He
seems, however, to have been quite unconscious, that by this
explanation, which is undoubtedly the correct one, he entirely
upsets his previous theory.  For, if the term first-born can only
be fully justified, by our tracing its origin to a 2physical generation through the grace of God, the same rule must also apply to
those who are born afterwards; and if those who regard the
former as indicating merely a spiritual relation are to be charged
with explaining the words away, the same charge must certainly
be brought against those who do precisely the same with the
latter.  And where could such a generation be found in the case
of the Gentiles?
It cannot be disputed that the notion, contained in the term
son of God, requires some concrete act of generation on the part
of God. We cannot discover this in creation; for here there was
no difference between the Gentiles and the Israelites.  Nor can
it be found in their organization as a distinct people, that is to
say, in the multiplication of the descendants of the patriarch to




FIRST APPEARANCE OF MOSES.              227
such an extent as to constitute a nation, in consequence of the
blessing pronounced by God (Gen. i. 26, ix. ); for in that case
Israel could not be the first-born, but the youngest of the nations.
Moreover, in either of these cases, it would not be Jehovah, but
Elohim, who would be described as the father.  All nations are
sons of Elohim from the very first, for they all owe their origin,
their existence, to the creative, world-sustaining, and superintending operations of God.  But only those, who are begotten
according to the counsel of salvation, can be called sons of
Jehovah.   The generation of Isaac was undoubtedly of this
kind.  But Israel was not called a son of Jehovah merely
(he is never called the only son), but the first-born son, who
would therefore be followed by other sons, begotten in the same
manner. HI-ence, as we understand the words, we are shut up to
the spiritual explanation; and the generative act of God, which
constituted Israel his first-born son, cannot have been any other
than that one act, by which Israel received its peculiar character,
as a people distinguished fromn all other nations on the earth, by
which the seal of Jehovah was stamped upon it, and which was
to make a perpetual distinction between the Israelites and other
nations, until the time arrived when these also should be described as sons of a later birth. This act was the election of
Abraham, with all the consequent leadings, and promises, the
blessings and chastisements, which had made Israel what it then
was; that is to say, all the dealings of God with Abraham and
his seed, from the first call out of Ur in Chald.cea to the summons to the mountain of God in Midian, which are thus brought
into a focus and placed in one single point of view.  This also
serves to explain the reason, why the seed of Abraham could not
be designated as the son of Jehovah until now (a fact which
Baumygarten's views will not allow him to explain); for the birth
of this son was only completed by the exodus from Egypt. Till
then, the Israelites had no individual and independent existence.
The idea of sonship embraces both the act of begetting on the
part of the father, and essential likeness on the part of the son;
for generation is the transmission of being, and the nature of the
father must also be that of the son. If, then, Jehovah had begot
ten Israel, there would necessarily be a Jehovistic nature in Israel.
But the Jehovistic nature of God relates exclusively to His
v2




228                   ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
operations in the development of the plan of salvation.  Israel,
therefore, if begotten of Jehovah, must have had imparted
to it some living germ  and divine call, in connexion with that
plan.
Moreover, the idea of sonship involves both paternal and filial
rights.  The son owes to the father obedience, confidence, reverence, and love, and the father is boundcl to render to the son sustenance, protection, and education.  Thus, in the name " son,"
there is involved the duty of faith in Jehovah on the part of
Israel, and the pledge of constant and immediate training on the
part of Jehovah.
But the idea of sonship is still further defined by that of primogeniture; and the first-born has peculiar rights and privileges
apart from the rest.  He has already enjoyed the father's discipline and care, long before the others begin to participate in it.
His education is complete, when the training of the others is
still in progress, and therefore, for a time at least, he has essential advantages over them.  Moreover he also takes part in the
father's supervision over the rest, and assists in their training.
And at all times he is the first and most natural representative
of the father.  If, then, Israel was actually the first-bo-rn son of
Jehovah, all this must have been manifest in their case.  The
very consciousness of being the first-born in the house of Jehovah,
was therefore a prediction for Israel of the future history of that
house; it was a repetition in a more concrete form of the original
prediction: " In thee and in thy seed shall all the nations of the
earth be blessed."  When Israel knew that he was the first-born,
he must also have known that the rest of the nations were
destined to be born at a later period, and therefore that they
also were called to inherit and share the possessions of the father's
house.  And this knowledge determined the duties of Israel with
regard to these nations, in both the present and future course of
their history.
Such a sonship as this, though it may be the result of spiritual
generation, is quite as real as that which proceeds from physical
generation. In consequence of this generation, Jehovah could
no more forsake the Israelites, than a father neglect his son (cf
Jer. xxxi. 20; Is. xlix. 15, &c.), for he had made Israel an actual
partaker of his own nature. Moreover, the character which was
imparted to Israel through this generation, and which for the




FIRST APPEARANCE OF MOSES.             229
time distinguished it from every other nation, was a thoroughly
real one, which had been implanted and had taken shape in the
flesh and blood, as well as in the spirit and soul of the people. The
call and election of Israel were something more than a mere idea,
which floated like a vapour above the people, and could be driven
away by the first wind that blew.  It had become the soul, the
national soul of Israel, and continued to fill with true life all its
healthy, normal, vital functions, so long as it did not touch its
own existence with suicidal hands.
(2). On the hardening of Pharaoh's heart we have an excellent dissertation by bHenjstenberq (Pentateuch, vol. ii. p. 380),
which, though not entirely free from partial views, has rendered
essential service towards the elucidation of this subject.  The
earlier Lutheran theologians went so far in their opposition to
the doctrine of predestination, as to maintain that the sinner
always hardened hinmsef, the part performed by God being
limited to permission alone. " The rationalistic theology appropriated the rationalism of the orthodox all the more readily,
since in the estimation of the former the co-operation of God
even for good does not extend beyond permission."  In this,
however, both the orthodox and the rationalist were at variance
with the Holy Scriptures, which so frequently and distinctly represent the hardening of man as the result of an actual interposition on the part of God.  But the Scriptures were regarded
by orthodox theologians as the word of God, and therefore they
endeavoured to show that the discrepancy was merely apparent,
and explained the Bible according to their notion of what hardening is. Thus, for example, in Pfeffer's Dubia vexata, p. 229,
the decisio respecting the case before us is as follows: " Deus
dicitur cor Pharaonis indugrare permissive, permittendo scil.
justo judicio, ut itte, qui se emolliri non patiebatur, sibipermissus durus maneret in _proptriam perniciem."  The rationalistic
theology, on the other hand, was not fettered by any doctrine
of inspiration, and therefore candidly acknowledged the discrepancy, and even exaggerated it to such an extent as to affirm
that the Scriptures made God the author of sin. Hengstenberg
has defended the authority of the Scriptures in opposition to
both of these, with especial reference to the hardening of
Pharaoh.
The first thing to be decided is, what interpretation the writer




230                    ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
Of the Scriptural record intended us to put upon the whole
transaction? With regard to this, Hengstenberg has at the outset very properly laid stress upon the fict, that the Scriptural
account represents the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, no less
frequently and decidedly as Pharaoh's own act, that is as selfhardening, than as an act of God of which Pharaoh was the
object.  He finds on examination that there are seven passages
in which Pharaoh is said to have hardened his own heart (Ex.
vii. 13, 22, viii. 15, 19, 32, ix. 7, 34), and also seven in which
God is said to have hardened Pharaoh's heart (chap. iv. 21, vii.
3, ix. 12, x. 1, 20, 27, xi. 10). In his opinion the number seven
is significant.  "It indicates," he says, "that the hardening
rested upon the covenant of God with Israel, of which this
number was the mark."  But in this we must differ from  him.
From the point of view referred to, we can easily understand why
the hardening should be represented seven times as an act of
God, for His covenant with Israel was the cause of all that He
did.  But it is impossible to apply the same explanation to the
fact that Pharaoh is also referred to seven times, as hardening
himself by his own voluntary act.  Where Pharaoh acted freely,
he cannot be regarded as having in any way acted in subservience
to the covenant.  It is only where his actions appear as the
result of what God had done, that such a reference is admissible.
However, as Baumgarten has already shown, Iiengstenberg has
not reckoned correctly.  It is not seven times but ten times that
(G-od is said to have hardened Pharaoh's heart, and ten times
also that Pharaoh is said to have hardened himself.'  At the
commencement of the narrative the hardcening is attributed twice
to Godl (chap. iv. 21, vii. 3), then seven times to  Pharaoh
(chap. vii. 13, 14, 22; viii. 1]5, 19, 32; ix. 7), then again once
to God (chap. ix. 12), twice to Pharaoh (chap. ix. 34, 35), four
times to God (x. 1, 20, 27; xi. 10), once more to Pharaoh (xiii.
15), and, lastly, three times to God (xiv. 4, 8, 17).   This considerably alters the state of the case.   Ten is the sign of completeness, being the last number of the decad, in which every
po)'sible numeral appears.  If, then, the Scriptural record sets
1 If the article in the evang. Kirchenzeitung 1837 was written by Hengstfenberg himself, (and we have no reason to doubt it), it appears an inexplicable
thing, that he should have given the right number " en " in that article (p.
4!16), and then afterwards have altered it to seven.




FIRST APPEARANCE OF MOSES.             231
before us the hardening of Pharaoh's heart ten times as his own
act, and also ten times as the act of God, we may conclude from
the equality in the numbers, that the two aspects are to be placed
side by side as of equal importance, and that neither of them is
to be sacrificed to the other.  On the other hand, from the fict
that the number ten is used on both sides, we may infer that
each of the two processes, which were the determining causes of
Pharaoh's hardness, ran its own course both freely and fully, and
that in' his case they were both of them  exhausted and completely fulfilled.  For this reason we are also unable to subscribe
to Hengstenberg's opinion, when he says that " the equality in
the numbers denotes, that the hardening attributed to Pharaoh
stood to that ascribed to God, in the relation of effect to cause."
We might reverse the sentence with quite as much propriety,
or rather impropriety.  If the author had desired to convey the
idea, which Hengstenbe-rg imagines, he would certainly have arranged the two causalities in such a manner, that every instance
in which the hardening was ascribed to God, should be followed by another, in which it was attributed to Pharaoh.  Even
in the fact that, " in the introduction and the summing up the
hardening is attributed to God," and therefore " the part performed by Pharaoh is surrounded by that of God," we can not
discover any evidence of an intention to represent " the former
as determined by the latter." The announcement of the obduracy of Pharaoh was necessarily made from that point of view,
in which it appeared as the work of God; for this was the only
light, in which it could awaken confidence or give the intended
pledge.  In making such an announcemeent, God could not possibly refer exclusively or even prominently to the fact that Pharaoh would harden himzself; for that would have implied, that
the people would be left to the caprice and hard-heartedness of an
enemy.  On tie other hand, there is certainly truth in the
further remuarks of I~en ystenbery, that " there are also marks
of design in the fact, that the hardening at the beginning of the
plagues is attributed, in a preponderating degree, to Pharaoh,
and towards the end to God.  The higher the plagues rise, so
much the more does the hardening of Pharaoh assume a supernatural character, and so lmuch the more obvious is the reference to a supernaturial cause."  But after the divine causality
has been placed in a lnmost decid-ed mannerl in the foregroundl the




232                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
self-hardening is again brought prominently forward; and in this
we discover an evident intimation, that the two causalities are to
be regarded as working side by side to the very close. We
will here merely observe in passing, that Hengstenberg really
contradicts himself, one of his assertions completely upsetting
the other. In one place he says that the hardening attributed
to Pharaoh stood to that ascribed to God in the relation of effect
to cause; and yet afterwards he says, that in the circumstance
that the hardening is at first chiefly attributed to Pharaoh,
and towards the end almost exclusively to God, we have a
proof that at the outset the human causality predominated,
and subsequently the divine, in other words that the former
was the effect, the latter the cause (the former the cause, the
latter the effect-Tr.). If the two causalities really stood to
each other in the relation of cause and effect, it is evident from
the fact just referred to, that the human has the stronger claim
to be regarded as the cause. But we deny that this is the relation in which they are to be placed, and we found our denial upon
the Scriptural narrative itself.  Each contains its own cause.
within itself, the one in the evil will of man, the other in the holy
will of God; the effect of the one is the hardening of a man to
his own destruction, that of the other the hardening of man to
the glory of God. Still each of these forms of hardening is determined by the other, and the one can never take place apart
from the other. Had Pharaoh not received that testimony from
God, of which the narrative before us speaks, he would not have
hardened himself; and had not Pharaoh's sinful will resisted the
divine decree, God would never have hardened him.
To prevent mistake, however, we must enter in several respects
into a fuller explanation of what we have said above. Both the
expressions employed and the facts themselves lead to the conclusion, that hardening can only take place, where there is a conflict between human freedom and divine grace. It is the ultimate
result which is sure to ensue, when the human will continues to
maintain a negative attitude towards the will of God, after the
latter has positively announced itself, in accordance with the
plan of salvation, as having no pleasure in the death of the
wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezek.
xxxiii. 11, cf 2 Pet. iii. 9; 1 Tim. ii. 4). Hence such a thing
can only occur within the sphere of revelation, or where the




FIRST APPEARANCE OF MOSES.              233
tidings of salvation have been received. In the case of a heathen,
then, the hardening referred to is impossible, so long as he continues fixed in a purely heathen state.  It is only when he comes
into contact with a special message front God, in connexion with
the history of salvation, as was the case with the king of Egypt,
that the hardening of the heart becomes possible for him.
Again, it follows from the notion of hardening, that it can only
result from a conscious and obstinate resistance to the will of
God.  It cannot take place where there is either ignorance or
error. So long as a man has not been fully convinced that he
is resisting the power and will of God, there remains a possibility
that as soon as the conviction of this is brought home to his mind,
his heart may be changed, and so long as there is still a possibility of his conversion, he cannot be said to be really hardened.
The hardening of the heart commences from the moment in
which a man becomes clearly conscious that he is resisting God,
and it increases in proportion as this consciousness becomes
stronger and clearer, and the testimony of God comes home to
his mind with greater vividness and power.  The course of
Pharaoh's history will show how truly this applied to him.
Hardening, then, cannot even commence till some manifestation of God has been brought home to a man, with the express
declaration and proof that it is such a manifestation. As God
desires that all men should be saved, the first manifestation of
God to a man must necessarily be one of mercy, designed to
lead to his salvation.  Even in the case of Pharaoh, the demaned of God that he should let Israel go, supported as it was
by signs and wonders, was an act of mercy; for it afforded him
the opportunity and means of coming to a knowledge of the
true God, of assisting in the development of the history of salvation, and of participating in its blessings.  If, after this, a
man rejects the mercy offered, and steels himself against its
saviny influence, this fact, which is the commencement of the
hardening of his heart, proves that there was already an ungodly
disposition within him, and that this disposition is still maintained in spite of such manifestation of the will of God.  There
is, it is true, an ungodly disposition in every mlan, because all
are sinners.  There was such a disposition in Moses as well as
in Pharaoh; and even Moses refused for a time to acquiesce in
the will of God.  In Uis refiusal, too, there was contained the




234                   ISRAEL INT EGYPT.
possibilty of his becoming hardened, but this possibility did not
become a reality, because the refusal was not an absolute one,
and because his disposition to depart from God was counteracted
by a leaning towards God, which eventually became victorious
under the assistance of God himself.  When Moses exclaimed,
"Lord, send whom thou wilt," he had probably approached
very nearly to the boundary of absolute refusal, which is the
commencement of hardness; but even these words did not con —
tain an absolute refusal, since there was still a tone of petition
heard by the side of the refusal.  The divine summnons then becatne a stern command, and the only alternative was either
unconditional submission to God, or unconditional rebellion
against him.  Had Moses chosen the latter then, we fear that
such a choice would have proved that his heart was hardened.
W7ith Pharaoh it was altogether different.  His ungodly disposition was already determined and unconditional, at the time
when the manifestation of God was made to him.  His refusal,
therefore, was from the very first an absolute one, and had no
counterpoise in a leaning towards God, as was the case with
Mloses.  And, therefore, fiom the very first, his opposition was
also a hardening of the heart.  Pharaoh hardened himself on
the first approach of God.  He did not recognise the mercy contained in that approach, as being really mercy.  But he could
not conceal frlom himself the fact, that it was God who was approaching him, and that by his refusal he was fighting against God.
Nlot that this is the only way in which the heart can be hardened.
Judas obeyed the call of the Lord, tasted the delights of fellowship
with the Lord, and yet was given up to hardness of heart.
No one would thinlk of describing the refusal of Moses, reprehensible as it was, or Peter's denial, however grievous the sin,
or lastly, the filry of Saule against the church of the Lord,
bitterly as he afterwards condemned himself for it, as a hardening of the heart, or even as the commencement of' hardening.
The commencemlent of hardening is really hardening itself, for it
contains the whole process of hardening potentially within itself.
This furnishes us with two new criteria of hardening; (1) before
it commences, there is alr eady in existence a certain moral condition, which only needs to be called into activity, to become positive hardness; and (2) as soon as it has actually entered upon the
very first stage, the comrlletion of the hardening may l)e regarded




FIRST API'TARANCE OF MOSES.              235
as certain. The ossification of the heart may progress, but it can
never return to a status integer; its course may possibly be
checked or retarded for a time by the removal of everything that
is likely to promote it, but nothing can prevent it from becoming
complete in the end.
In what relation, then, does God stand to the hardening of
the heart? Certainly His part is not limited to mere permission.
Fiengstenberg has proved, that this is utterly inadmissible on
doctrinal grounds; and an impartial examination of the Scriptural record will show that it is exegetically inadmissible here.
iNo. God desires the hardening, and, therefore, self-hardening is
always at the same time hardening through God. The moral
condition, which we have pointed out as the pre-requisite of
hardening, the soil from which it springs, is a man's own fault,
the result of the free determination of his own will.  But it is
not without the co-operation of God, that this moral condition
becomes actual hardness.  Up to a certain point the will of God
operates on a man in the form of mercy drawing to himself, he
desires his salvation; but henceforth the mercy is changed into
judicial wrath, and desires his condemnation.
The will of God (as the will of the Creator), when contrasted
with the will of man (as the will of the creature), is from the
outset irresistible and overpowering. But yet the will of man
is able to resist the will of God, since God has created him for
freedom, self-control, and responsibility; and thus when the
human will has taken an ungodly direction and persists in it,
the divine will necessarily gives way. Hence, the human will is
at the same time dependent on the divine will, and independent
of it.  The solution of this contradiction is to be found in the
tact, that the will of God is not an inflexibly rigid thing, but
something living, and that it maintains a different bearing
towards a man's obedience, from that which it assumes towards
his stubborn resistance.  Int itself it never changes, whatever
the circumstances may be; but in relation to a creature, en(lowed with fireedom, the manifestation of this will differs
according to the different attitudes assumed by the freedom
of the creature.  In itself it is exactly the same will which
blesses the obedient and condemns the impenitent,-there has
been no change in its nature, but only in its operations, —just
as the heat of the sun which causes one tree to bloomn is precisely




236                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
the same as that by which another is withered. As there are
two states of the human will, obedience and disobedience; so are
there two corresponding states of the divine will, mercy and
wrath, and the twofold effects of these are a blessing and a
curse.  Even when the divine will yields to the human, it
maintains its absolute supremacy, for in yielding it merely proceeds to manifest itself in another form, in accordance with the
conditions of human freedom. But the human will is free, only
because the living action of the divine will endows it with the
power of self-determination.  And it is also under restraint,
since it can never escape from the will of God; for when it
withdraws itself from one form of the divine will, by that very
act it yields itself captive to another. Whenever a man obstinately refuses to submit to the will of God, who desires his
happiness, God yields at length to the will of the man himself,
who is seeking for happiness in an ungodly way, and working
out his own condemnation.  The ultimate result, then, is that
described in Ps. cix. 17: " He wished for cursing, and it will
come to him; he had no wish for blessing, and it will be far from
him."  The hardening of the heart, so far as it is permitted
by God, is nothing but a recognition of human freedom, even to
its utmost abuse; but God does more than permit this hardening, he wills it and even promotes it, when once a man's own sin
has gone to such lengths, that all the pre-requisites of hardness
are already there, and nothing more is required tihan an opportunity or inducement for putting it in practice.  The occasion
is then created by God, and it is this which constitutes the
co-operation of God in the hardening of a man.  Under these
circumstances hardness of heart nmust necessarily ensue.  Still
the necessity for such an issue does not arise from the measures
adopted by God, but is contained in the man's own moral condition, a condition brought about entirely by himself.  Hence,
it is not the will of God, which forces him into hardness, but
his own ungodly will. The message from God, which furnishes
the occasion for the entrance, continuance, and consummation of
the process of hardening, is in itself as much a means of sanctification as of condemnation. The very same divine manifestation, which furnished the occasion for the hardening of the king
of Egypt in his peculiar moral condition, would have been the
means of leading him to salvation, if his moral condition had
a




FIRST APPEARANCE OF MOSES.           237
not been what it was. Whenever a message from God is received by a man, it urges him forward, either to salvation or
condemnation. And his condition must become better, or worse
than it was before. Such a message cannot pass over him without effect, for it is not dead but living.
If the message from God had not been delivered to Pharaoh,
his heart would not have been hardened.  If God had not
brought the matter to a climax by fresh manifestations of a
more and more striking character, the hardening would not have
been completed.  But neither his present nor his future condition would have been improved thereby. For the soil, from
which this hardness sprang, would have been just the same, and
a period in his history would have been sure to arise, as in that
of every other man, when a decision, an actual, absolute decision
must necessarily have been formed. Such decisions are a necessary part of the moral, that is the divine, government of the
world. As the judgment is the end and aim of the history of
the world, and of the life of every individual, it is necessary that
such a decision should be formed by every individual as a prerequisite of judgment. It makes no difference to the individual
himself, whether the decision is hastened or delayed. Nor are
the reasons of such acceleration or delay to be found in the man
himself, but in the position which he occupies in the world.
The history of the world is woven of innumerable threads, and
He who sits at the loom takes every thread just as it suits his
purpose, but sooner or later he is sure to take them all. In the
present instance it is easy to discover why this was just the
moment, when it was requisite that Pharaoh's decision should
take place. A new thread was about to be introduced into the
plan of salvation and the history of the world, and that decision
could not be dispensed with.
(3). The occurrence in the inn, which is narrated in chap. iv.
24-26, is in many respects difficult to understand. In ver. 24
it is said that " it came to pass by the way in the inn, that
Jehovah met him, and wished to kill him."  As the words stand
here, they cannot possibly be referred to any one but Moses.
But several commentators have assumed that it was not Moses,
the father, but the uncircumcised son, who was threatened with
death. E. Meier has lately adopted this explanation (Wurzelwbrtb. p. 402). The opinion that it was Mloses' son, whom




238                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
Jehovah wanted to kill, is derived from  a reference to ver. 23.
Jehovah is supposed to threaten, that he will punish Moses for
neglecting to circumcise his son, in the same manner as he had
already declared that he would punish Pharaoh for his disobedience.  As such an interpretation is impossible with the
present reading, Ileier pronounces the passage mutilated; and
supposes a verse to have been omitted between vers. 23 and 24,
which contained the information that the first-born of ZMoses had
not been circumcised, and concluded with the threat, " if thou
do not circulmcise him, I will slay thy son, even thy first-born."
The similarity between this conclusion and that of ver. 23 is
said to explain the accidental omission of the conjectural verse.
But this is merely one of the arbitrary and unfounded assumptions, to which we have become accustomed, from such men as
eie er.  There is no reference at all to the first-born son of
Moses.  As we find from chap. iv. 20 that he had more than one
son (according to chap. xviii. 3, he had two), and as only one of
these is said to have been uncircumcised, it is scarcely possible
to come to any other conclusion, than that it was the youngest.
If it had been the frst-bolrn, this would certainly have been
stated in ver. 25.  But there is another difficulty, of greater importance than 3lleier's foundling, which induced some of the
earlier commentators to refer the threat, contained in ver. 24, to
the son rather than the father.  In Gen. xvii. 14 it is the
neglected son, not the negligent father, who is threatened with
being cut off, if circumcision should not be performed.  But
even in this passage the destruction of the child is intended to be
set forth, as primarily and chiefly a punishment for the parents;
and what is of more importance still, the threat applied to the
period when the covenant was in full force.  When the covenant
was suspended, or had been almost lost sight of by the parties
concerned, as was the case now, after the Israelites had been in
Egypt for 400 years without any revelation (of. ii. 24), the
threat contained in Gen. xvii. 14 lost its relentless severity.
Still it was an act of sinfuLl weakness and perverseness on the
part of Moses, to give way in this matter to the self-will of his
wife, a weakness which became the more conspicuous, now that
he was about to come forward as the hero of God, and a perverseness, which seemed all the greater, as lie was on his way to
Egypt to renew the covenant, whose provisions he had himself




FIRST APPEARANCE OF MOSES.              239
neglected.  The anger of God was therefore directed immediately against Moses himself, and not, first of all, against his
son; that is to say, it threatened his own life and not his son's.
This occurrence was, at the same time, a fresh and striking
proof of the holy and inviolable manner, in which the covenant
was to be henceforth maintained; but the threat also involved
a promise and a pledge, that Jehovah would di!c9play as much
vigilance and zeal in his defence, as he now displayed on behalf
of the covenant.  In the place of " Jelovah," the Septuayint
reads a`yyeXos Kvplov in ver. 24, a reading which is certainly
justified by the sense (cf. chap. iii. 2, 4).  It is doubtful, however, whether we are to think of a visible appearance, on the
part of Jehovah or his angel, or merely of some act performed
by Jehovah, which threatened to put an end to his life.  The
brief'and indefinite notice in the Bible appears to favour the
latter conclusion.  Moses was probably suddenly attacked by
some mortal disease, in which he could clearly discover the hand
of God.
It is stated plainly enough in the history, that Zipporah was
chiefly to blame for the omission of the circumtcision. Whether
her maternal feelings had led her to set herself against his being
circumcised at all, or whether, from her contempt for the Israelitish rite (Gen. xvii. 12), and her preference for the custom of the
Ishmaelites (Gen. xvii. 25), she wished to delay the circumcision
of her sons till their 13th year, cannot possibly be decided.
EHer accurate acquaintance with the mode of performing the
operation, which is presupposed by ver. 25, might perhaps be
regarded as favouring the latter conclusion. Her use of a sharp
stone for that purpose, is in harmony with Josh. v. 2.  The
agreement between these two passages seems to imply, that in
the earlier times stone knives were generally employed in the
operation. If this was the case, the explanation of such a custom
is not that metal knives were as yet but little used, but that on
symbolical grounds stone knives, which are a simple product of
nature, were preferred to metal knives, which had been prepared
by human art and were in general use every day.  Even in
heathen countries stone knives were employed in operations of
a religious nature, e.g. in the preparation of the mummies in
Egypt (Herod ii. 16': VAO,  AIOLorucj O'E 7apaoXL'tcvTeCE 7'apa




240                   ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
T7v Xavr prqv), and in the emasculation of the priests of Cybele
(Catull. xliii. 5: devolvit acuto sibi pondera silice).
Zipporah cut off the foreskin of her son L:4:% S.-~,   How
are we to understand these words? Do they refer to Moses' feet,
or his son's? This depends upon the interpretation to be given
to Sy,  If the meaning of this word will admit of its being
referred to Moses, there is no grammatical difficulty to prevent
our referring the suffix to him also, as he is mentioned in the
previous verse. MJeiier renders the passage " she cut off the
foreskin of her son, and smeared his feet (with it, or with the
blood)," on the ground that the Hiphil of y2: is also used in
Ex. xii. 22, with reference to the smearing of the lintel and
door-posts with the blood of the paschal lamb, and moreover
(listen and admire his acuteness!) the smearing of the blood on
the lintel and door-posts exactly corresponded to the blood on
the feet and the place of the wound (!!!)  We do not think it
worth the trouble to reply to such nonsense.  yV: means to
touch, the Hiphil to cause to touch, to bring into contact. This
may be done in a slow and quiet way, or in a violent and angry
manner. The passionate excitement of the woman, which is
apparent enough from the history, justifies us in giving the
preference to the latter.  The words would then mean: she
threw down at his feet. Smearing the feet of the child with
the blood of the wound would be thoroughly senseless and without
any analogy. And there would have been just as little sense in
her throwing the foreskin at the boy's own feet. But the whole
scene is intelligible enough, if we refer the words to Moses. It
is her husband's fault, she thinks, that she is obliged to perform
this bloody operation against her will. In her ill-humour she
throws the foreskin at his feet, which was as much as to say:
"now you have what you want."
If J>-j is to be thus referred to Moses, there can be hardly
any doubt that Zipporah's exclamation, "a blood-bridegroom
art thou to me," was addressed to the husband and not to the
son.  But in this instance also E. Meier has displayed most
remarkable wisdom.  " A.n VT," he says, is " an expression
borrowed from the consummation of marriage, and therefore
points out the newly circumcised child as consecrated, entrusted
to God. The act of circumcision bears this resemblance to the




XIRS 1 APPI' EALtANTCE OF 1' _O6ES,      24-1
consu1mm1ation of marriage, that in both cases there is an offering of blood to the great Deity of nature, and by this offering,
this symbolical sacrifice to the God of life, in either case there is
a self-consecration to the Deity of life, by which the right of
existence is first obtained."  Spenzcer also is of opinion that the
meaning of Zipporah's words is: Ritu illo Deo et ecclesiae nostrae, quasi conjugii foedlere copulatus es (p. 61 ed. Pfaff.).
There is no doubt whatever that circumcision may be regarded
in the light of a marriage or union with God, and the use of the
Arabic word        for circumcision shows that it; has been so
interpreted.   But the idea of there being any reference to connubial intercourse is nothing but a colossal absurdity, and even
Spencer's explanation is inadmissible, for Zipporah says: " A
blood-bridegroom thou art to mne."  A ben-Ezce and Ijnmc/bi say
that the Jews were accustomled to call a newly circumcised child
Chatan (though this cannot have been a universal custom, for
we find no reference to it anywhere else; Bodenzschact, for example, does not once refer to it): but if so, this only proves that
the later Jews gave this interpretation, or rather misinterpretation, to the passage before us.-On the other hand, the whole is
perfectly clear, if we understand the words as referring to Moses.
Moses had been as good as taken from her, by the deadly attack
which had been made upon him.  She purchased his life by the
blood of her son; she received him back, as it were, from the
dead, and married him  anew, he was in fact a bridegroom  of
blood to her.  In ver. 26 we read: " She said'blood-husband'
because of the ci'rcum~ecis'ions       ).   The Plural in this
case must either be regarded as an abstract, according to the
well-known custom  in Hebrew  (referring to circumcision in
general as a religious rite, which Moses had wished to observe,
but which shme had hitherto obstinately refused, and not to the
particular concrete act), or we may take it as a concrete, and
refer it to the circumcision of the two sons.
(4). We learn from Ex. xviii. 2 that Mloses sent back his wife
and children to his father-in-law.  This probably occurred now.
The event in the inn had convinced him, that Zipporah was by
no means in a proper state of mind to encounter all the dangers
which threatened him  in Egypt, with equanimity and faith.
His brother Aaron's advice may also have led him to adopt this
resolution.
VOL, II..




242                 ISRAEL IN EIGY'T.
(5). It was a most important thing both for Moses and the
people, that the latter should believe God on the first interview
with Moses. 1. Baumgarten has the following apt remarks on
this subject: " The text exhibits this declaration of feeling, with
which the entire nation responded to the first message from God,
as a most important commencement.... By faith Israel
now proved itself to be the son of Jehovah (ver. 22), for the son
believes the father. And the commencement thus made by the
seed of Abraham, as a nation, answered to the disposition manifested by their father Abraham himself (Gen. xv. 6).  Thus,
whatever might be the course henceforth pursued by the nation
of Israel, it enjoyed this honour, that its first mental act was
faith, in which, though still suffering the severest oppression
and hardship, it looked upon the redemption of Israel as already
secured.
~ 22 (Ex. v., vi.).-A good beginning was made; the people
believed and worshipped. But when Moses and Aaron appeared
before Pharaoh, and in the name of Jehovah, the God of Israel,
requested him to allow the Israelites to go a three days' journey
into the desert (cf. ~ 22. 4), that they might celebrate a festival in honour of their God, they met with nothing but ridicule
and insult (1).  "Who is Jehovah," said Pharaoh, "that I
should obey his voice?  I know nothing of your Jehovah, and
will not let Israel go."  The king of Egypt, from his heathen
point of view, looked upon Jehovah as merely the national god
of the Hebrews, who in his estimation was as powerless and contemptible in comparison with the gods of the Egyptians, as the
enslaved Israel when compared with the despotic and powerful
Egypt. Like people, like god, was his notion; and, to show his
contempt of both, he contemptuously increased the oppression
under which Israel was groaning.  The people, he thought,
have too easy a life of it, and hence the wish for liberty is growing up among them; he therefore ordered their task to be
doubled, that he might thoroughly eradicate any such desire.
Hitherto they had had the material fbr the work brought to




FIRST APPEARANCE OF IOSES.            243
them; but henceforth they were to get it for themselves, and
yet produce as many bricks as before (2). This was beyond
their power. They fell into arrears with their deliveries, and
their shoterim (or scribes, ~ 16) were beaten in consequence.
They complained to the king of such inhuman proceedings, but
their complaints were disregarded. And now the weakness of
the people's faith became at once apparent. They heaped reproaches upon Moses and Aaron, for having brought them into
deeper misery instead of bringing them relief, and refused to
listen to their consolations and promises any more (3). But
this only afforded the occasion for a display of the ability of
Jehovah both to overcome the incredulity of the people, and
break down the opposition of Pharaoh.
(1). The request, that Pharaoh would let the people go a three
days' journey into the desert to celebrate a festival, does not seen
to have struck the Egyptians as anything surprising.  This maly
possibly be explained on the ground that the Egyptians were in
the habit of making similar pilgrimages from time to time.
Niebuhr discovered a mountain, called Surabit-el-Khadim, in
the desert between Suez and Sinai, the whole plateau of which
was covered with fragments of statuary, and pillars overturned,
evidently the ruins of a temple, the pillars being crowned with the
head of Isis. All the walls, pillars, and fragments, that were left,
were covered with Egyptian hieroglyphics, symbols, and representations of priests offering sacrifice. Lord Prudlhoe supposes this
to have been a sacred spot, to which pilgrimages were made by
the ancient Egyptians. The supposition is well founded, though
Robinson has expressed a different opinion (Travels, vol. i. 112
-- 116).
(2). The tributary service referred to here, consisted of the
making of bricks for the royal buildings (vid. ~ 14. 5). Up
to this time the straw that was required had been supplied to
the Israelites; but henceforth they were ordered to go into the
fields and gather it for themselves. The bricks, most extensively
used by the Egyptians, were not burnt (as Luther's translation
erroneously implies), but dried in the sun. The clay was mixed




24.4                  ISR1AEL In EGYPT.
with chopped straw to give it the greater consistency.  hosetinf
brought some bricks from  Thebes with the stanmp of King
Thothmes IV., the fifth king of the 18th dynasty, upon themn.
On examination, it was found that they were always mixed with
straw.  Prokesch (Erinnerungen ii. 31) says: " The bricks (of
the pyramids at Dashur) are made of the fine mud of the Nile
mixed with stubble.  This mixture gave to the bricks an inconceivable durability."  Hengstenberg (Egypt and Moses, p. 79
transl.), has properly laid stress upon this, as a proof that the
author of the account before us possessed a most accurate acquaintance with the customs of Egypt.
L. de Laborde (comment. g4ogr. p. 18), has the following
comment upon this passage.'; J.i assiste aux travaux du canal,
et les tmoyens comme le r6sut-.  m'ont semble en tos points
repondre aux versets de l'Exode.  Cent mille malheureux remnuaient la terre, la plupart avec les mains, parceque le gouvernement n'avait fourni en nombre suffisant que des fouets pour les
frapper; les pioches, les pelles et les couffes manquaient.  Ces
paysans, hommes infirmes, vieiilards (les jeunes gens avaient e't
reserves pour l'armee et la culture des terres) femmes et enfants
venaient principalement de la haute Egypte, et etaient repartis sur
le cours presume du canal en escouades plus ou moins nombreuses.
L'entreprise etait dirigee par des Turcs et des Albanois, qui
avaient etabli parmi les paysans des conducteurs de travaux
responsables de la tache imnposee a chaque masse cl'hommes.  I1
faut dire, que ces derniers abusaient plus que les autres de
i'autorite, qu'ils avaient recue.  Tout ce monde de travailleurs
dtait cense recevoir une paie et une nourriture, mais l'une manquait, depuis le commencement des travaux jusqu'a la fin, l'autre
etait si precaire, si incertaine, qu'nn cinquieme des ouvriers
mourut daus cette misere sous les coups de fouet, en criant
vainement, comlue le peuple d'Israel (v. 15, 16), &c."
(3). By modern critics, who suppose that chap. vi. formed
part of the original document, and that the previous chapters
(iii.-v.) are supplementary, the two passages are regarded as
different accounts of one and the same event, whereas according
to their present position they form different parts of a continuous
narrative.  Undoubtedly nearly all the particular details of the
call described in chapter vi. are also found in chaps. iii.-v.; and
hence one might be tempted to regard the former as an earlier,




THE SIGNS A-SND WONDEIRS.            245
imore concise, and summary account of the same event.  But it
is also conceivable that, after the failure of the first mission to
Pharaoh, the same doubts and fears may have arisen again in
the mind of Moses, which he had already expressed at Horeb,
and hence it may have been necessary that the call should be
renewed, with a repetition of the consolations and promises by
which they had once before been allayed.  But at any rate, even
if the two sections must be regarded as differen-t  accounts of the
same event, there is sufficient progress in the second section to
justify the editor in placing the summary account, contained in
chap. vi., after the more detailed narrative in chap. iii.-v.
This progress consists in the change from  the strong faith,
evinced by the Israelites at the outset (iv. 31), to the incredulity,
manifested by them  immediately upon the failure of the first
attempt (vi. 9).
(2), On the CAPITAL of the King of Egypt at that time, see
~ 1. 5, and ~ 41. 2.
THE SIGNS AND WONDERS iN EGYPT.
Vid. Lilienthal, gute Sache ix. p. 31 sqq.-S. Oedmanm
vermischte Sammlung aus der Naturkunde zur Erklirung der
heiligen Schrift. Aus d. Schwed. v. Groning, Rost. 1786 sqq.Rosenmiiller, altes und neues M-orgenland, vol. i. Hengstenberg,
Egypt and the books of Mloses, p. 95-125, Eng. transl.-L. de
Laborde, comment. geogr. p. 22 sqq.-J. B. Friedreich, zur
Bibel, Niirnberg 1848, i. 95 sqq.
~ 23 (Ex. vii. 1-7).-Pharaoh had contemptuously rejected
the word of God, and therefore God spoke to him in deeds.  The
instrumentality of Moses was also employed in the deeds, as it
had formerly been in the word. The fruitless negotiations were
followed first by a declaration of war, and then by war itself.
Moses, the shepherd and leader of Israel, was opposed to Pharaoh,
the King of Egypt.  But Moses was the messenger and repre



246                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
sentative of Jehovah, whom Pharaoh despised, so strong was his
confidence in the superior might of his own deities. Hence the
contest, which was now about to commence,  was essentially a
war^ on the part of Jehovah against the gods of Egypt (1). For
that reason, Moses clicd not conduct the armed hosts of his people
against the horses and warriors of Pharaoh; it was not to the
secular power of the Egyptian monarch, but to his gods, that
the gauntlet was thrown down.  It was in the domain of
miracles that the battle was to be fought-a domain in which
Egypt regarded itself as peculiarly strong-for it was in Egypt,
the land of conjurors and magicians, of interpreters of dreams
and signs, that mnagic, that mysterious life-blood of heathenism,
had put forth its marvellous power in its most fully developed
forms (2).
(1). The whole of the ancient church was most fully convinced of the reality of the heathen gods. Idolatry in its esteem
was devil-worship in the strict sense of the term. The fathers
of the church had no more doubt than the heathen themselves,
who still adhered without the least misgiving to the religion
they had inherited from their fathers, that the gods and goddesses
of mythology were real beings, and had a personal existence,
and that the worship with which they were honoured was not
only subjectively directed, in the minds of the worshippers, to
certain supernatural beings, but actually reached such beings
and was accepted by them. The fathers of the church undoubtedly lived in an age, when the original power of heathenism
was broken; but even this shattered heathenism, the disjecta
membra 3poetae, still produced upon their minds the powerful and
indelible impression, that there was something more in all this
than the empty fancies or foolish speculations of idle brains; that
there were actually supernatural powers at work, who possessed a
fearfully serious reality. The impression thus produced upon their
minds, by their own observation of the tendency of heathen
idolatry, was confirmed by their reading of both the Old and New
Testaments; and the greater the confidence with which theylooked
upon the salvation they had experienced in Christ, as something




THE SIGNS AND WONDElRS.               247
real and personal, the less doubt did they feel, as to the reality
of the powers of evil by which it was opposed in heathenism.
In a word, the gods and goddesses of heathenism were in their
estimation the destructive powers of darkness, the fallen spirits,
the principalities and powers that rule in the air, of whom the
Scriptures speak.  It is not to be denied, that in this they went
farther than the Bible authorised theim to go.  But it must be
mraiintained, on the other hand, that they had laid hold of the substantial truth contained in the Bible; whilst their error was merely
formal, and confined exclusively to their doctrinal exposition of
that truth.  But modern theology, both believing and sceptical,
by denying all objective reality to the heat1hei:_n chctiies, and pronouncing them nothing but creations of t-e i imagination, has
departed altogether from the truth, and rendered it impossible
to understand either heathenism itself, or the conflict which is
carried on by the kingdom  of God against the powers of
heathenism.  We find Hengstenherg still following this false
track (Beitrdge iii. 247 seq.). In the zeal, with which he has so
worthily contended against the rationalist foundling of a national
God of the Hebrews, he has persuaded himself that he may
safely assert, that the Bible does not once attribute even a, sphere
of existence to the gods of heathenism, much less a sphere of
action.  On the other hand, the theologians of the present
day are again beginning to discover the true solution of the
problem. Among others we may refer to J. T. Beck (Einleitung
in das System der christl. Lehre p. 102 seq. and christl. Lehrwissenschaft i. 259), Rodatz (luth. Zeitschrift, 1844), Delitzsch
(biblisch-prophetische Theologie p. 81), M. Baumonyarten (Commentar i. 1. p. 469; i. 2 p. 351, &c.), Hofmann (Weissagung
und Erfiillung i. 120; Schriftbeweis i. 302 sqq.), Ndagelsbach
(Der Gottmensch Niirnb. 1853. 1. 244) &c. There were others of
earlier date who held the correct view, for example: G. Jlenken
(Homilien fiber die Geschichte des Elias., 2 A. Bremen, 1823,
p. 107 sqq.), and still farther back Chr. A. Crusius (Hypomnemata ad theol. proph. i. 129 sqq.).
Crusius maintains with perfect justice: Sacrae literae a Mose
usque ad Novum, Testamentum constanter docent, Deastros esse
daemones. Quorum etsi Deitas negatur, non ideo entitas, ut ita
dicam, negari censenda est, cum potius contrarium aperte pateat.
What impartial expositor can possibly deny that such passages




248                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT
as Ex. xii. 12, xv. 11, Num. xxxiii. 4, Dent. x. 17, Ps. lxxxvi.
8, xcv. 3, xcvi. 4, xcvii. 9, cxxxv. 5, cxxxvi. 2, seq., &c., attribute to heathen deities not merely a " sphere of existence," but a
"sphere of action" also?  In Ex. xii. 12 Jehovah promises:
" I will pass through the land of Egypt this night 
and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment, I
Jehovah."  In his song of praise (Ex. xv. 11) MIoses sings:
" Who is like unto thee, 0 Lord, among the gods?"  In Ex.
xviii. 11 Jethro confesses: " Now know I that Jehovah is greater
than all gods!" Even on the gods whomn Israel served in the
desert Jehovah executed judgment (Num. xxxiii. 4). In Deut.
x. 17 AMoses declares to the people: " Jehovah, your God, is the
God of gods and the Lord of lords."  The Psalmists describe
Jehovah as highly exalted above all gods (Ps. xcvii. 9, cxxxv. 5),
as a great king above all gods (Ps. xcv. 3), as to be feared above
all gods (Ps. xcvi. 4), whist /ihere is none like him among the
gods (Ps. lxxxvi. 8). In the prophets the judgments of God
on heathen powers are spoken of, as a victory on the part of God
over the heathen deities, and a judgment inflicted on them.
Now who would suppose the theocratic lawgiver, the poets, or
the prophets, capable of such absurdity, as to think that the best
way of convincing the people of the absolute power and supremacy of Jehovrah, was to demonstrate continually that he was
stronger than nothi:ng, more exalted than a mere fancy, greater
than what had no existence at all, victorious over something
which had no sphere of operation or of life, ruler over that which
was not, and judge of that which had never been? Cervantes
nmakes the knight of La Mancha fight against windmills; but the
prophets would have done something worse than this, if they had
made their Jehovah attack, conquer, and execute judgment
upon something, of which they were convinced that it never
existed at all.
Let us see what reply Hengstenberg has to make to this. He
proves the non-existence of the heathen deities, first of all, from
what the Pentateuch says of Jehovah: "Jehovah is Elohim,
the God of Israel is also the deity; quidquid divini est, is contained in him."  But the gods of the heathen are also Elohim,
and are so called.  " Jehovah is the God of the spirits of all
flesh (Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16); He is the creator of the heavens
and the earth; the heaven and the heaven of heavens are His,




TH1E STGNS AND WONDERS.               249
the earth also and all that therein is (Deut. x. 14); He feeds
and clothes the strangers (Deut. x. 17, 18); from Him proceeds
the blessing, which is to flow through the posterity of the patriarchs to all the families of the earth; He is the judge of the
whole earth (Gen. xviii.).  What is there then that is left for
the idols, seeing that all is preoccupied by Jehovah?   They
can be nothing but Xseytevot Eo[t, I Cor. viii. 5."-This is all
perfectly correct; they cannot be gods in the same sense as
Jehovah, or on an equality with Him, of the same essence, and
with equal power.  But Ilengstenberg asserts more than this.
He maintains that " they cannot exist at all, since they have
neither a sphere of action nor a sphere of existence."  What a
leap in the demonstration!  Hengstenbery might have said,
with quite as much propriety, that angels, and men, and animals
cannot exist at all, because they have neither a sphere of action,
nor a sphere of existence. The sphere of existence belonging
to the heathen deities is within the limits of creation, though
it is super-terrestrial; and their sphere of action is simply
heathenism, viz., that which is estranged from  God, and has
rebelled against Him, who alone is Gocl.-Henystenbery further
demonstrates the non-existence of the heathen deities from the
terms employed to designate them in the Pentateuch: " They
are called -m8'l9 nothizngs (Lev. xix. 4), lpN V% and =tf2W
"not God" and "vanities" (Deut. xxxii. 21), >>LN -'i  (ibid.
ver. 17),  i: stercorei (Lev. xxvi. 30; Dent. xxix. 17)."And from this we are to infer, that they have no existence
at all, that they are merely " creatures of fancy!" And this
is to overthrow the strong testimony, afforded by the passages
cited above, to the objective reality of those powers, which the
heathen worshipped as their gods! Does it follow that, because
the XeyOzevot Oeoi of heathenism are not-God, therefore they are
nothing, have no existence at all?  Does it follow that, because
they are powerless in relation to Jehovah, they are also powerless in relation to man?  Does PLSN mean that which has no
existence whatever; does it not rather mean that which is not
what it pretends to be, or is supposed to be? (cf. Gesenius, s.v.,
p. 103. 1) adj. qui nihili est, vanus, inanis, debilis).  Did Job
(xiii. 4) mean to say, that the friends who camne to comfort




250                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
him, had no existence, when he called them  >.N. >h  (no
physicians?). Or was it with reference to something that did
not exist, that Zeclzariah said, " Woe to the ~tn  n   jyia
(the worthless shepherds) who neglect the flock?" (xi. 17).-The
same remarks apply to the passages in which the deities are
called ~.~. Was it the opinion of Eve that her second son
had no existence whatever, when she called him iZn?  When
Job exclaimed Fat ~_~ 4C (vii. 16), did he mean to say his
- T'.. Y
days had never been?  Or do the words of the Preacher, i:
1,- (all is breath, vain), deny that anything exists?
Lastly, it is with peculiar emphasis that he says: " If a man
should say that Christ conquered the gods of Greece, is there
any one in the world who would infer from this, that he believed
in the existence of those gods, especially if at other times he had
repeatedly and expressly stated, that he looked upon them as
merely creatures of the imagination?"  Most certainly if the
latter were the case, the former could only be regarded as a
mode of speech, intended to be poetical.  But in no other case;
that is to say, we could only interpret the words as poetical, if
it had been first of all established that the gods of Greece were
vain, non-existent creatures of fancy; and this, as we have seen,
cannot be proved on Scriptural grounds.
We adhere, therefore, to the opinion expressed by the excellent Crusius: Quorum etsi deitas negatur, non ideo entitas
negari censenda est.  We cannot otherwise explain the fact,
that in the same breath the sacred Scriptures maintain the
reality, and also the nothingness of the strange gods; e.g., Ps.
xcvi. 4, 5; 1 Chr. xvi. 25, 26; compare also 1 Cor. viii. 4, 5,
and x. 19, 21.
We cannot at present enter upon the enquiry,'to what extent
the doctrine respecting the daemonia had been developed in the
age of the Pentateuch.  So much, however, we may safely affirm,
that if there was no daemonology before, it must have arisen
from the prevalence of the views referred to respecting the
heathen deities.  If Jehovah is the one and only.. God, the
supreme and absolute Deity, and if, on the other hand, the
so-called gods of the heathen are real, super-terrestrial beings
and powers (Elohim), which are objects of fear and reverence to
2




THE SIGNS AND WONDERS.                 251
the heathen on account of their power,' but from their weakness
are n9~tN and  k,-L-;- in the estimation of Jehovah and his
people; which were created by Jehovah, but have resisted him,
though he has defeated and judged them; we have here tlhe
necessary data for determining the daemonology of the Bible.The ungodly and rebellious nature of these powers, whom the
heathen worshipped as Elohim, is apparent from  the judgment
executed upon them by Jehovah; and it was expressed in the
name  NOW (from BO.Wj violenter c,-;, vastavit), i.e., destroyer,
devastator, ungodly daemons (Deut. xxxii. 17; Ps cvi. 37).
We may see from the Septuagint, that in the opinion of later
Jews the heathen deities were representatives of daemoniac
powers.  The words M-1tn in Deut. xxxii. 17, and Ps. cvi. 37,:n'79NS, in Ps. xcvi. 5, (7ranvres ol Oeol Tic'v  Ovpv 8atl6ovta),
*. (god of fortune - Baal), in Is. lxv. 11, and other similar
expressions, are all rendered 8atzolvza.
This view is also fully sanctioned by the New Testament. The
description of the spirit by which the girl at Philippi was possessed (Acts xvi. 16), as a 7rve/cka HIvcowvos, may be adduced as
a proof of this. And Paul says most clearly and indisputably in
1 Cor. x. 20, 21, " the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they
sacrifice to daemons and not to God.  And I would not that
ye should have fellowship with daemons (KoWlvvoro T'v 8attzovlov). Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of
daemons; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and the
table of daemons."  Ex quo statim apparet, says Crusius (1. c.
p. 133), Apostolumn daemonia illalpro naturis existentibus habere,
non pro figmentis cerebri humani.  A lioqui communione curm
illis interdicere non poterat, quia non entis nulla praedicata
sunt. In this passage the apostle expresses his conviction of the
actual personal connexion between daemoniac powers and the
worship of the heathen, in a manner so clear and decided that no
other explanation is possible. It is true that in another passage
(1 Cor. viii. 4, 5), he brings forward the other side of the ques1 I have been convinced by Delitzsch (Genesis ed. ii. 1. 31 and ii. 171 sqq.)
that the opinion, formerly expressed by me (Vol. i. 8 13. 1) that Mi qLS   is
derived from ~3[q, to be strong, is untenable, and that it must be traced to
the Arabic Aliha = stupuit, pavore correptus est; transitive: coluit, adoravit
Deum.




252                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
tion in the same manner as the Pentateuch does: "as concerning the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice to
idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world (OATt OVS&v
etwXoo'v C~Ic6,   cf. x. 19, and vii. 19), and that there is none
other God but one."  But it is evident from what follows, that
the apostle does not mean to deny that the idols have any
real, objective existence (a statement which would be directly
at variance with chap. x. 20, 21).  In ver. 5 he says, " for
though there are really so-called gods (,can ya7p etrep Xeyo/eo, ol
Oeo[), whether in heaven or on the earth, as there are actually
many gods and many lords (coe-rt etAt Oeot vroXXot gcal  UpLotL
-roXXoi), yet we have one God, the Father," &c. The apostle
first of all introduces the statement, that the XE-/ylevotL eOe really
exist, in a hypothetical manner, as a mere supposition, an opinion
generally entertained; but he afterwards guards against any
doubt that might arise, as to his own agreement with that
opinion, by introducing the parenthetical clause, d6o7Iep eiol Oeo0
7 roXXol, &c., which contains a most distinct assertion, that the
popular opinion is perfectly true.
The Scriptures do not anywhere affirm, that the mythological
world of heathen deities exactly corresponds to the objective
world of daemons, that is to say, that every individual god in
the heathen worship is to be personally identified with an individual daemon, or vice versda, that each particular daemon is represented by some heathen deity, so that we can say that Osiris
and Isis, or Jupiter, Mars, Venus and others, are all representatives of particular personal daemons, and that the same name
always denotes the same daemon. On the contrary, they merely
affirm that the worship of the heathen has respect to real objects;
that all the homage paid to a heathen deity reaches some existing, personal, supernatural power, and is accepted by that power;
and that, as the heathen devotes himself to some such power by
the worship which he presents, so does that power come near to
him, and enter into living fellowship with him.  " The things
which the heathen sacrifice," says Paul, " they sacrifice to daemons,"-they think they are offered to a god, but they only reach
a daemon, a being opposed to God and not God; and he who
sacrifices enters thereby into fellowship with daemons, as the
Christian, when he comes to the table of the Lord, enters into
fellowship with Christ.




THE SIGNS iND WONDERS                  253
The relation between the mythological world of deities and
the world of daemons may be thus explained: The commencement of all heathenism was a departure from the personal, holy,
spiritual, and supermuundane God, who had become burdensome
and troublesome to the desires of the heart.  The fulness of
life, apparent in all nature, the rich variety of its forms, the
energy of its powers, its inexAhsaustible resources of enjoyment, the
charm of its mysteries, and other things, then became objects
of veneration.  The first object of adoration was the fv san
7rav, the- force of nature which gives to every thing its life, and
shape, and motion; —thus the primary form of heathenism was
pant7heism.  But the various methods in which the common
force of nature manifests itself, the different functions and instrumentalities employed, and the manifold spheres in which it
developes itself, caused the p,Kcab 7raTv to be grasped not merely
in its unity but in its diversity also; and thus pantheism
was shaped and developed into polytheism.  It was from the contemplation ofnature, and the play of speculation and fancy, that
mythological systems sprang. The names and forms of the various
deities, and the peculiar powers and functions attributed to them,
were purely creations of the fancy, empty and airy phantoms.
There was no living personal object by whom the worship could
be received.  But this did not continue to be the case.  The
empty forms, which the fancy had created, were soon filled with
something real.  For the dEXo9pv-k0KELt'a, which turned away
from the one living God, and sought for other objects besides
him, afforded to the spirits, described in Eph. vi. 12 as apxal
and 6'.oUlvat, Kto-ipotcpaopCs TOV CKOTOVCd'  TOVTo'   and 7pvEVuLaTLKa'
v-'J 7roepica dv'ois' e7rovpavloLs, a sphere of action on the earth,
such as fthey had never had before, and supplied them with empty
forms, which they were able at once to fill with their substance.
Powers of magic and augury were now put forth, on the basis
and in the ceremonies of this OseXoOprqoKica; and these powers
attested the presence of real supernatural agencies, and tended to
confirm and enslave the heathen in their errors.  Hence it is
equally true that the heathen deities are vain creations of the
fancy, and that they are real and personal powers, that the e'ieoXov is a nothing, and yet that it is something possessed of power.
And it is no more true, that they have in themselves any per



254                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
sonal reality, than that they have continued to be merely airy
phantoms in the concrete development of heathen life.
(2). "As there is no nation without religion, so there is also
none without magic, which clings like a shadow to religion in all
its forms."  (Georgii in Pauly's Real-encyclopidie iv. 1377).
Magic, according to the notions prevalent among those who
placed implicit confidence in it, is a power, acquired or inherited,
which enables the possessor, by means of some secret art or
science, to employ at will the forces of a supernatural world of
spirits or deities, either for the purpose of finding out what is
naturally hidden from human knowledge (augury), or of performing things, beyond the natural power of the human will
(magic). Three different methods have been proposed, for explaining those examples of magic which are found recorded in
well-authenticated history.  The first method treats the whole
affair as fraud and trickery on the one side, and superstition or
excessive credulity on the other.  This is the explanation suggested by the modern enlightened schools of Deism and Rationalism, in which Balthazar Becker, with his " Enchanted world,"
first led the way (De betoverde Weereld, 1-4. Amst. 169193. 4). But these things are already looked upon as antiquated.
The second method admits the credibility of those accounts of
magic, which have been handed down, and regards the feats
described as actually performed by supernatural powers, either
good or evil. A distinction was frequently made between black
and white magic.  White magic was referred to God or his
angels and saints, whose assistance was supposed to have been
obtained by means of prayers, asceticism, by word or sacrament.
Black magic was attributed to Satan and his angels. With this
explanation, the magic of heathenism was of course set down as
exclusively the work of Satan.  From the time of the Rabbis
and Fathers till the days of modern " enlightenment," this was
the explanation adopted in both the synagogue and the church.
The third method suggested, for explaining the enigmatical
data, traces the whole to natural powers, which are either
acquired or inherent in the human mind, and which are only
secret so far as they have not been thoroughly investigated by
science. These powers are said to consist, partly in the control
possessed by the human mind over nature itself, and partly in




THE SIGNS AND WONDERS.              255
the connexion between one mind and another. In the ordinary
every-day life these powers lie dQrmant in the depths of the soul,
shut up and confined by the bolts and bars of the outward life
of sense. But there are occasions and circumstances, sometimes
unsought (as for example in certain diseases, or at the approach
of death), at other times induced at will by some influence from
without, in which these bolts are drawn back, the veil of the
Psyche is lifted, and the hidden dormant power of the mind
wakes up and moves, free and unfettered, in regions of light and
knowledge, of will and action, from which it is entirely excluded
when the bodily life, the life of sense, is in its healthy normal
condition. This explanation has found many friends and supporters, since mesmerism has thrown some light upon the mysteries of somnambulism, and induced phenomena, corresponding
in many respects to those displayed by the magicians of old.
Thus not only are the phenomena of magic, of which we have
received accounts both from antiquity and from the middle ages,
regarded as something more than a mere delusion, a mournful
aberration of the human mind; but they are even supposed by
some to be a continuous series of profound anticipations of a
science, the first letters of whose alphabet have been but recently
learned, and not only this, but anticipations of that state of activity, to which the human mind will first fully attain, when it
has entered upon the perfect life of the future state, where it
will no longer be encumbered by an outward corporeal frame.
The work of Joseph Ennemoser (Geschichte der Magie, being
the first volume of his Geschichte des Magnetismus ed. 2. 1844)
is founded upon this hypothesis.
With regard to the phenomena of heathen magic, to which
our plan requires that we should confine our attention in the
further discussion of this mysterious subject, we feel obliged to
maintain at the outset, that neither of the methods described
above is equally applicable to all the cases which present themselves. On the contrary, sometimes one will furnish a satisfactory explanation and sometimes another; most frequently it
is necessary to combine two of them together; and there
are cases, which it is perhaps impossible to explain without
uniting all the three. It is very seldom indeed that the mysterious phenomena of magic can be set down as mere trickery,
a clever attempt to deceive; and the farther we go back into




256                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
antiquity Lthe more rarely do such cases occur. Orn the'otlfher
hand, the farther we depart from the period, in which we find heathenism in its most simple state, towards a period of abstraction
and reflexion, the further we leave behind us the age, in which
it flourished with unbroken power, and approach the times in
which its power was shattered aCnd its end was at hand-so that
instead of the vigorous breath of life, we become more and more
sensible of the odour of dissolution and decay-the less hesitation
do we feel in assuming that there is some trickery, even if the
whole is not fraud.
In addition to what we have already said, with reference to
the nature of the heathen deities and heathen worship, we have
still the following remarks to offer, in explanation of the enigmatical phenomena of heathen magic. There are three different
sources, from which extraordinary and miraculous knowledge
and power may be obtained: life in God and with God, the
fellowship of daemons, and a magical power acquired by the
mind over both nature and spirit. The third is a middle-sphere,
capable of serving as the channel of both divine and daemloniac
knowledge and power. And in itself it is undoubtedly sufficient,
under certain circumstances and within certain bounds, to confer
the ability to look beyond the limits of time and space, and to
will and perform things which in our ordinary every-day life are
absolutely impossible. Yet this never occurs in the present life,
when the body and soul are in a healthy and normal condition,
but only during some temporary, and more or less violent and
unnatural disturbance of their proper relation to each other.
When our present life is in a sound and natural state, such
faculties as these are suppressed and hidden, and merely exist
as dormant potentialities bound up in the inmost recesses of
the soul. There can be no more doubt, that, when they were
first implanted in man, they were intended to be unfolded
and put forth in this present life, than that they will still, by
virtue of the counsel of redemption, attain to full development
and activity, though this may only take place in the future state.
For the present, however, they are sbhut up and restrained
according to the gracious will of God, because their exercise
in connexion with the sinfulness of humanity could only, be
injurious and ungodly, and therefore unnatural also.  Hence
every arbritary and self-willed attempt to burst the fetters by




'TLE SIGNS AND WONDERS.             257
which they are bound, and so to loosen or snap the intimate
connexion which exists between the body and the soul as to
open up a chasm from which they may come forth, is from the
very first ungodly and unnatural.  It matters not whether this
be accomplished by means of the stupifying vapour from the
cavern at Delphi, or the intoxicating poison of the toadstool;
by fixing the eyes upon a tin plate, or looking intently at the
navel, the method adopted by the Omphalopsychi; bythe magnetic
influence of a physician, who goes beyond the laws of medicine
in the performance of unwarrantable experiments, or by any
other means by which the outward, clear, self-consciousness is
forcibly suspended. And where this is accomplished, let no
confidence be placed in the revelations which may be made, or
in the morality of the power that may be at work; the prophecy
is as likely to be false as true, and the power at work is just as
likely to be injurious and destructive, as beneficial and saving:
for a so-called natural magic is essentially unnatural and ungodly.
Such experiments are doubly dangerous, for a man thus lets the
sceptre of self-consciousness and spontaneity fall from his hands,
and knows not whither the emancipated, will-less (willentose)
power of the jpsyche may hurry him, and to what strange, dark,
and hostile powers it may thus be laid open and become a helpless prey. In the case of many heathen oracles, and also of
many of the revelations made by modern sleep-walking Pythiae,
it is indisputable that some wicked, mischievous, intentionally
deceptive intelligence has been at work (cf...H v. Schubert,
Zaubreisiinden p. 38); and the Angekoks of Greenland acknowledged, after their conversion to Christianity, that "much of
their conjuring had been nothing but trickery, but in a great
deal of it there had been some spiritual influence, which they
now abhorred, but could not describe" (Crantz, Hist. v. Gr6nland i. 273).
There is an essential difference, however, between this natural
magic and the exertion of miraculous power, either divine or
daemoniac; although it may serve as the channel for either. Of
the former we have not to speak here. But with regard to the
latter it was clearly the conviction of the biblical writers, not only
that it was within the bounds of possibility, but that it was
actually put forth in heathenism (in the period of its power
and glory), and will once more be displayed in the final conflict,
VOL. II.                                   R




258                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
which has yet to take place between the kingdom of God and
the kingdom of darkness (2 Thess. ii. 9; Mnatt. xxiv. 24; R1ev.
xiii. 13). Even if we leave out of sight the feats performed by
the Egyptian magicians, so far as they were successful; the
earnestness and emphatic manner, in which the law prohibits
every kind of heathen witchcraft, forces the conviction upon
our mind, that the lawgiver did not regard the practice as mere
superstition, a foolish fancy, or delusive trickery.  And if we
turn to a later period; who can read the history of the contest
between Elijah and the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel, and
doubt for a moment that they actually and confidently expected
signs and wonders from their god?  And how can this confidence be explained, unless on a former occasion they had received some such proof of his power?
But if, according to the Scriptures, we must thus attribute to
daemoniac powers the ability to perfobrm signs and wonders,except so far as they were prevented by a divine interdict,-we
maintain just as firmly, according to the Scriptures, that they
were only o-qveiua cat6 TCpaCa,ev[;ovS (2 Thess. ii. 9).  They
were lying signs and wonders, because they proceeded from a lie,
and their aim was falsehood. They were lying, because they represented the XETyOevot Oeol as OVTEiS Ool; whereas in spite of all
the signs and wonders the latter were only n,[?h[ and Dts':-7,
an ovv v Kv KOR-At. They were lying, because the powers employed by those who performed them were stolen and abused
and because they were the means of perpetuating error, falsehood, and destruction; in a word, they were lying because they
gave themselves out for what they were not, and whilst professing to do good were really the cause of evil.
It is still a point in dispute, whether the feats performed by
the Egyptian magicians were examples of a natural or daemoniac
magic, or of both together.  But to our mind there can be no
doubt, that what they did was not effected without the co-operation of those powers, which they worshipped as gods. The whole
scene from first to last is described as a contest between Jehovah and the gods of Egypt. The conjurors, we may be sure,
left nothing untried which they thought likely to bring the gods
to their help, and the gods of Egypt, that is the daemoniac
powers, who were here engaged, will assuredly have endeavoured
to maintain the appearance of power, as long as they possibly




THE SIGNS AND WONDERS.               259
could.  The scriptural record says with regard to the magicians
(Ex. vii. 11, 22; viii. 7, 18 [iii. 14] ):   they also did in like
manner with their enchantments (b;~l?7),"  but it does not
inform us what these enchantments were.
~ 24 (Ex. vii. 8-13). —Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh
again a second time at the command of God.  Aaron, as the
prophet of Moses, carried the rod with which the gods of Egypt
were to be defeated (~ 20. 7).  When Pharaoh demanded a
miraculous proof of the power of their God, Aaron threw down
his rod before the king and his servants, and immediately it
became a serpent.  Thus was the contest commenced in the
very territory in which the magic of Egypt was strongest, that
of snake-charming.  Pharaoh imagined that he was certain of
victory here. He therefore sent for his wise men and sorcerers (1)
(Charthummnim, cf., vol. i., ~ 88. 1), that they might frustrate
Aaron's power by their secret arts. They appeared and threw
down their rods.  These also became serpents, but were swallowed by Aaron's rod (2).  Thus was the first decisive victory
gained by the power of Jehovah over that of the gods of Egypt.
This was so clear and unmistakeable, that even Pharaoh could
not deny it. Yet he would not acknowledge it.  His sorcerers
had produced the same effects by their conjuiing as Moses and
Aaron; and the unfortunate result might, perhaps, have been
merely attributable to accident, or the carelessness of his sorcerers.
At all events, instead of yielding to the impression which he
ought to have received from this manifestation of divine power,
he hardened his heart against it and persisted in his refusal.
(1). The Apostle Paul has, no doubt, followed the Jewish
tradition when he calls the- sorcerers, who withstood Moses,
Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. iii. 8).  This tradition is also
found in the Targums and Talmud.  Jannes and Jambres
are represented in the latter as sons of Balaam (Num. xxii. 22),
cf. Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. Talmud, p. 945 sqq.  The same names
also occur in a fragment of the Pythagorean Numenius (about
ii 2




260                  ISBAtEL iN EGYPT.
150 A.D.) quoted by Eusebius praep. evang. 9. 8, where they
are said to have been the most distinguished magicians of their
age, and to have been summoned by the Egyptians on that
account, that they might resist Moses, whose prayers to God
had been especially powerful; and that they actually succeeded
in counteracting and driving away all the plagues, which Moses
brought upon Egypt.-The Arabian tradition calls the leaders
of the magicians, who contended against M[oses, Sabur and
Gadur, and does not relate anything remarkable concerning
them. (TVid. Herbelot orient. Biblioth. s.v. Mussa 1Halle 1789,
iii. 588 sqq.). The account given by Pliny in his hist. nat. 30. 1
(2), "est et aelia Mayices factio, a MosE etiamnum et LOTAVEA
Judaeis pendens, sed nultis millibus annorumn post Zoroastrem
tanto recentior est Cypria," has no connexion with this subject.
(The reading a Hose et Janne et Jotcfpa [Jochabele] Judaeis?pendens is corrupt).  There is great plausibility in the conjecture offered by Fr. C. MJeier (Judaica. Jena 1832, p. 24, n. 16):
" An designaverit Noster quosdam de circeumeuntibus Judaeis
exorcistis, quorum mentio fit in Act. xix. 13, quorum _princeps
tuerit in Cylyro Judaeus, nomine Lotopeas?"  Compare especially J. A. Fabricii. Cod. pseudepigr. V. T. i. 813 sqq.; where
the ancient accounts and modern opinions are most diligently
collected together.
(2). One of the principal branches of Egyptian magic from
the earliest times has been SNAKE-CEHARMING; and even to the present day there are relics of this secret art, the astounding results
of which no European observer, however incredulous, has been
able to deny. The earlier accounts of snake-charming, to which
reference is made in Ps. lviii. 6 and Jer. viii. 17, have been collected by Bochart (hierozoicon iii. 1 61 sqq. ed. Bosenmiitler) and
Catmet (Biblical Researches); the later by Hengstenbery (Egypt
anud the Books of Moses p. 98).-The modern snake-charmers
or Psylli form a separate hereditary guild, their principal occupation being to attract from their hiding-places any poisonous
snakes, that may have concealed themselves in a house, and thus
to clear the house of them. The manner in which they handle the
most venomous snakes, without having extracted their poisonous
fangs, is almost incredible.  In the learned work of the FrancoEgyptian expedition (vol. xxiv., p. 82 sqq.), it is stated that
at religious festivals the PsylNi appear nearly naked, with




THE SIGNS AND WOINDERS.              261
snakes coiled round their neck, their arms, and other parts of their
body. They allow them to bite and tear their breast and abdomen, defending themselves against them with a kind of frenzy
and appearing as though the snakes were about to devour them
alive.  According to their own account they can turn the Haje,
the snake generally selected for their experiments, into a stick,
and compel it to look as if it were dead. When they want to produce this effect, they spit into its throat, force the mouth to, and
lay the snake upon the ground. Then, as though giving it their
last commands, they lay their hand upon its head, when the
snake immediately becomes rigid and immoveable, and falls into
a kind of torpor.  They wake it up, whenever they wish, by
laying hold of its tail and rubbing it quickly between their
hands."
To these accounts Hengstenberg appends the following remarks, which are certainly correct: " It deserves to be noticed that
the present condition of the Psylli in Egypt is entirely one of decay.
It is torn away from its natural connexion, the soil of natural
religion, from which it originally sprang.  It exists in a land
in which modern illumination has already exerted its influence
in various ways, and thus fettered its freedom.  Accordingly
nothing was more natural, than that very much that is artificial
should be associated with the ecstatic condition produced, and
that much charlatanry should creep in" (p. 102 Eng. transl.).
We decidedly agree with Hengstenberg, that there is a close
connexion between the events before us and this relic of the early
Egyptian order of the Psylli; but we cannot assent to the
manner in which he and others (0. v. Gerlach, Hdverniclc, &cc.)
dispose of the matter.  Hengstenberg says: "Moses was furnished with the power to produce those effects, on which the
Egyptians especially prided themselves, and on which they chiefly
founded their authority," and 0. v. Gerlach most naively copies
from him this quid pro quo. But according to the account contained in the Pentateuch the problem was not to turn snakes into
sticks, and then revive the snakes which had become as rigid as
poles; but to turn a dry stick into a living snake, and then change
it into the substance and condition of a dry stick again.  And
these learned men are certainly open to the charge of having
missed this problem altogether; whilst their oversight gives a
certain colour to the remark of v. Lengerke (i. 406), which is




262                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT,
intended for wit: " The serpent of Moses is still a flying on%,
for it flies away at the appearance of criticism."
That JMoses, according to the biblical account, changed a real
stick, a piece of wood, into a real living snakle, and then turned
this again into a piece of wood, is a fact which must be admitted
without hesitation or disguise.  No twisting and turning, no
passing over in silence, will avail anything here. If, then, Moses
was empowered by God, as Hengstenbery says, to produce those
effects on which the Egyptian magicians especially prided themselves, it will be necessary to admit with equal candour that
the Charthummim are also said to have turned dry wood into
living flesh.  But in that case the remarks which be makes (at
p. 102 transl.), are calculated to mislead. He -there says: " Were
the thing so simple as it is generally considered to be, were it
either common jugglery or something really miraculous, performed by the permissicn of God through Satanic influence, then
the author of the Pentateuch would not, it may be presumed,
fail to express an opinion upon it.  But, since the ground on
which these things rest-a very dark and difficult one —is
still but little explored by science even in its most advanced
state, it is better to content ourselves with the outward effects
produced, without attempting to penetrate into their actual
nature."
It cannot, however, have been a matter of so little importance
in the estimation of the writer, as Hengystenbery supposes,
whether the feats performed by the Charthumlmim were effected
by the indifferent laws of nature, or some ungodly daemoniac
power; for the worth of the victory could only be righly estimated) when it was known over whom it was gained.  If, then,
the author has made no express declaration on this subject, the
reason must have been, not that he felt any doubt or uncertainty
himself; or that he thought it possible to leave his readers in
doubt, but that he assumed that his readers would naturally
understand how the matter was to be explained.  The whole of
the legislation of the Pentateuch, in which all such magical arts
are treated as an abomination to the Lord, as rebellion against
Jehovah, is based upon the assumption that daemoniac, ungodly
powers were actively connected with heathenism  (~ 23. 1).
And up to the time when the destructive infidelity of Sadduceeism
prevailed, we may be sure that no Israelitish reader put anyr




T1:E SIoGS' D AIND WONDLERS.         263
other interpretcaLion upon the narrative, than that there was an
active co-operation on the part of ungodly, that is of daemoniac
powers.  And just as confidently are we prepared to assert, that
the Charthummim themselves had no doubt whatever, that they
were assisted by such powers-the only difference being that the
Charthunmmim from their point of view regarded the assistance
as conling from some godly daemoniac power, whilst the Israelites believed the power to be that of an ungodly daemoniac
character. It is only when considered in the abstract, that the
sphere of magic can be looked upon as a natural and indifferent
one; in its concrete form it is filled with ungodliness. In its
earliest stages, it did not arise from any influence exerted upon
nature by daemoniac powers; but by the violence done to nature
a breach was made in the natural boundaries which God had
established, and through this breach daemoniac powers rushed
in with irresistible force and obtained the supremacy.  The
Scriptures regard the practice of magic as already actually belonging to the spiritual powers of darkness.
Let us look, then, at the problem, without disguise or fear of
disagreeable results! It is impossible to determine a priori to
what extent magic, when its power is greatest, can penetrate into
the sphere of miracles, and whether the ability to turn a stick
(either really or apparently) into a snake is to be regarded as
within the boundaries of that sphere.  All depends upon whether
the scriptural record says that it is to be so regarded. What we
there read is: " The magicians of Egypt, they also did in like
manner (as Moses had done) with their enchantments; they cast
down every man his rod, and they became serpents, but Aaron's
rod swallowed up their rods."  Were the rods, then, which the
sorcerers brought with them, wooden rods, or snakes which they
had rendered as rigid as rods by their incantations?  We cannot at once affirm that the latter was not the case.  The sorcerers
who were not summoned till Moses had already performed his
miracle in the presence of Mloses and his servants, knew beforehand for what purpose they were summoned.  They could therefore make their preparations before they went, and take with
theni such rods as they would be able to turn into serpents.
Moreover, such was the sacredness of the snake in Egypt, and so
highly was the magical art of its Charthuminim esteemed, that




264                   ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
it is quite conceivable that the latter may have carried such
snake sticks as the symbol of their order.  The rod was employed from the very earliest times, as one of the insignia of
office.  We cannot, indeed, subscribe to the statement made by
Sctholz (Einleitung in die heil. Schriften. KIln 1845. 1. 399), to
the effect that, " in countries, where suitable wood was so scarce
that they were obliged to make use of whatever material was at
hand, it is possible that they may not infrequently have made a
kind of rod from snakes (? T).  For the finest, such as shepherds'
crooks and rulers' sceptres, they seem to have used the larger
hornedc-vipers or cerastes (?).  The sceptres which the Pharaohs
are represented as holding in their hand, in the paintings on early
Egyptian monuments, e.g. in the temples at Thebes, are always of
this shape, with the head and neck bent forwards.  It frequently
occurs in the hieroglyphics, in very different connexions, as a
symbol of supremacy. The wooden staffs carried by the shepherds of Arabia are still made in the same form, the magical
power referred to above having long been lost."  The form of a
snake, which was adopted for ordinary staffs, may certainly
point to actual snake-staffs (i.e. rigid snakes), from which they
were copied, though the latter may have been carried by the
adepts of magic alone.  Still, we feel some hesitation in giving
the preference without reserve to such an explanation.  According to the biblical record, the superiority of Moses, and the victory gained by him  over the Charthummimn, were evidently
displayed in the fact, that his snake swallowed up their snakes.
But if the interpretation just given be correct, was there not
another point of superiority worthy of being recorded, viz. that
Moses was able to turn a real staff into a serpent, whilst the
staffs of the sorcerers were only staffs in appearance after all?
However, we do not regard this difficulty as conclusive.  The
biblical record merely describes with objective calmness what
took place before the eyes of the spectators. It does not concern
itself with any arts which the Charthummim may have previously
employed, to get possession of staffs which they could turn into
serpents. It is enough that the result of the whole gave to the
miraculous power of Moses a most brilliant victory over the
magical arts of the sorcerers.  A brilliant victory it certainly
was.  The sorcerers were disarmed, the symbols and insignia of




TIE SIGNS AND WONDERS.               265
their calling and art were not only taken from them, but completely annihilated, and thus their art itself was shown to be
completely defeated and annihilated too.
But, as we have already said, we are not afraid of the result,
should any one press the letter of the scriptural narrative (as
we think, unwarrantably), and try to force us to confess that the
staffs of the Charthummim were also of wood.  The Scriptures
speak of oJ?7Jel/OtL icat r~epao' tVe8ovs, which are wrought Kay'
Evepy7eta   TOV 2'aTrava.  And should the explanation here given
not be received, we do not hesitate to admit, that even in the
present instance it is quite possible, that such lying signs and
wonders may have been performed by jugglery, and by means of
daemoniac agency.
~ 25. From the fruitlessness of the first sign, it was evident
that Pharaoh would not learn wisdom, till he had been made to
suffer. The great judgments and strong arm of the Lord therefore began at once to be manifested.  Signs gave place to
plagues; but the plagues still continued to be signs, which
demonstrated the weakness of the gods of Egypt, and the complete supremacy of the God of Israel. The peculiarity of these
plagues was, that they possessed at the same time a natural and
a supernatural character; and therefore the way was left perfectly open for the exercise of either faith or unbelief: the more
so as even that which was supernatural, when compared with
the similar efforts of the Egyptian sorcerers, might be set down
by unbelief as the result of ordinary magic (1). The first two
plagues were repeated by the sorcerers; but their weakness was
manifested in the fact, that they could only increase the evil, and
were unable to remove the plagues, or render them harmless.
But at the third plague their magical art was entirely exhausted,
and they were unable to continue even their miserable imitations.
When the plagues had reached the significant number ten, the
victory of Jehovah over the gods of Egypt was at length complete, and the judgments of God on Pharaoh's hardened heart




2G6 6                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
were brought to an end.  The whole of the plagues appear to
have been inflicted within the space of two months, commencing
at the early part of February, and terminating at the beginning
of April (2).
(1). A closer acquaintance with the physical condition of
Egypt has shown that the placgzues, which preceded the deliverance of Israel, were plagues peculiar to the country, and that
they frequently occur there; though never in the same force, or
to the same extent, or so rapidly one after the other, as on the
occasion before us.  This fact has been used by both deists and
rationalists, for the purpose of bringing the whole series of signs
and wonders, down to the level of purely natural and fortuitous
occurrences.  The natural basis, upon which the events described
as miracles rests, places it in their opinion beyond the reach of
doubt that all the incidents described in the scriptural account,
which cannot be brought within the category of merely natural
phenomena, were nothing more than mythical embellishments.
The English deists led the way (see Lilient.?al's reply to them);
and after the great French expedition, Dzu Bois Aym 6e and Eichhorn went still farther in the same direction, the former in the
notice sur le s/jour des tHfbreux en Eg.ypte, in the 8th volume
of the " Description de l'Egypte, ou recueil des observations qui
ont ete' faites pendant l'expedition franQaise," the latter in his
article de Egy fpti anno mirabili (in the comment. societ. Gott.
rec. IV. hist. p. 35 sqq.).  Hengstenbery, on the other hand, has
undertaken to show, that the natural basis, on which the plagues
were founded, furnishes a proof of their miraculous character.
The principal points in his argument are: " (1) The design of
all these occurrences was, according to chap. viii. 22 (18), to
prove that Jehovah was the Lord in the mizcst of the land. But
this could not be thoroughly demonstrated by a series of altogether unwonted terrors.  All that could follow from these would
be, that Jehovah had obtained a temporary and external power
over Egypt. But if the events, which happened every year, were
shown to be dependent upon Jehovah, the best proof would thus
be afforded that he was God in the midst of the land, and by the
judgment inflicted upon the imaginary (?) deities, which had
been put in his, place, thoi;e deities would be completely banished




TNH:.E' SIGNtS AND VWONDERS.          2(7
from the very territory, which had been hitherto regarded as peculiarly their own. (2). The tendency of later fiction would be,
to disturb the connexion between the natural and the supernatural, from a notion that such a connexion impaired the dignity of
the latter, and obscured the omnipotence of Jehovah, and his love
to Israel. It would aim at representing the plagues inflicted upon
Egypt, as a number of terrors of the most extraordinary kind."
(Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 97).
The last argument, however, can hardly be considered a conclusive one; and in our opinion it would have no force at all,
unless directed against opponents, who denied that there was
any historical basis for the narrative to rest upon, and pronounced the whole account a legendary fiction, or an invention
of the author.  The first argument, on the contrary, we regard
as perfectly conclusive. The plagues were so arranged, as to embrace both the natural and the miraculous: the natural, so fari
as the same or similar phenomena occurred in Egypt in the
common course of events, —the miraculous, inasmuch as they
were unparalleled in their extent, their amount and their force.
They probably occurred at an unusual season of the year.  They
camle at the immediate command of Moses, they disappeared
again at his bidding or his prayer, and lastly (and this is the
most important feature of all) the land of Goshen and the Israelites were entirely free. The miraculous character of these plagues
was therefore forcible and evident enough to strike any one, who
was willing to see; but it was not so unmixed and irresistible, as
to render it impossible for determined unbelief to overlook it.
In this we see one of the reasons, why the miraculous power
of God was associated with natural phenomena, which were in
themselves by no means unusual.  A second reason may be discovered in the fact, that the Egyptians looked upon the powers
of nature as deities.  For these very deities of theirs were compelled by lBoses' rod, to bring mlisery and destruction upon their
own worshippers.  A large portion of the plagues were plagues
of animals, and Egypt was the land of animal-worship.  The
author of the Book of WVisdom (chap. xi. 15 seq.) has given due
prominence to this feature: " for the foolish thoughts of their
unrighteous conversation. by which being deceived they worshipped irrational worms and contemptible beasts, thou didst send
among them swarms of i:rcationa] beasts for verlgeaance, that tlhiey




268                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
might learn that by whatsoever any man sins, by the same shall
he be punished."
A third feature, which explains to us the choice of such
plagues, is this: that the contest of Jehovah against Egyptian
heathenism was thus transferred to that particular sphere, which
the latter regarded as its stronghold, and therefore the victory
was complete.  The Egyptian sorcerers were able to perform
the same feats by the power of their gods, as Moses by the power
of Jehovah.  It is true that their arts were exhausted at the
third plague.  But we must not infer from this, that they had
only power to conjure up frogs, but could not act upon gnats or
flies.  They tried their skill in the third plague also, and they
did so, no doubt, with the full confidence that they would be
quite as successful, as with the first and second. But they failed
and confessed, " this is the finger of God!" vid. ~ 28. 2.
(2). The season of the year at which the Egy2ptian plagues commenced, and theperiod of their duration, can only be approximatively determined. The last plague occurred on the 14th of Nisan,
that is, about the beginning of April. The first is frequently supposed to have taken place when the water of the Nile was high; on
the assumption that the turning of the water into blood was
the same thing as the reddening of the water, which very
often takes place when the river overflows.  This ordinarily
happens in the month of July.  If such a theory be correct, the
divine controversy must have been carried on for a period of nine
months. Hengstenberg thinks there was a special reason for its
lasting so long (p. 106): "it must have had a peculiar significance, if Jehovah went through an entire revolu~tion, as it were,
with the Egyptians, and for once displayed his miraculous power
in connexion with the ordinarily recurring circle of natural phenomena."  But apart from the fact, that this identification of
the miraculous change of the Nile with the reddening of the
river, which is customary at the time of the overflow, is still very
problematical, and in my opinion inadmissible (~ 26. 1); apart
too from the probability, that the plagues were intentionally arranged, so as to happen at an unseasonable period, in order that
their miraculous character might be clearly stamped upon them:
there are other data, which render it highly probable that the
whole course of this miraculous chastisement occupied a very
limited period of time.  It is expressly stated in chap. vii. 25,
2




TILE SIGNS AND WONDERS.             269
that onily seven days intervened between the first and second
plagues. When the seventh plague (that of hail) occurred " the
barley was ripe and the flax was bolled" (chap."iix.:- 31 seq.).
Now, in Egypt, barley and flax ripen in March (Hengstenberg,
p. 121); so that there were not more than three weeks, between
the seventh plague and the tenth. The interval, therefore, between the last four plagues must have been the same as that between the first and second, namely, one week. If we suppose
this to have been the average interval, the whole period must
have occupied about nine weeks, which would have to be reckoned
from the commencement of February to that of April. Moreover,
in spite of the reasons adduced by Hengstenberg to the contrary,
we believe that a quick succession of plagues must have been incomparably more impressive and effectual, than the same plagues
could possibly have been, if spread over the whole of the year.
~ 26. (Ex. vii. 14-25).-As Pharaoh was going one morning to the Nile, probably to offer sacrifice, or perform his religious ablutions, Moses and Aaron met him. At the very moment
when the king came to present his homage and his worship to
the Father of life, the Father of the gods (as the Egyptians designate the Nile), he was forced to look on while the messenger of
Jehovah smote him in the face, till it became bloody. Aaron,
that is to say, smote the stream with the rod of God, and all the
water in the river, as well as in the canals, the trenches, and the
ponds, which were connected with it, and even the water which
had been previously taken from the Nile, and was set by to settle
in wooden or earthen vessels, was turned into blood. The fishes
died in the river; the water became corrupt and stank, so that no
one could drink it; and the Egyptians were obliged to dig in the
sand, to obtain water of a different kind. The Egyptian sorcerers
did the same with their enchantments (2). But Pharaoh hardened his heart again.
(1). The first plague was the turning of the water of the Nile
into blood. When we enquire into the natural groundwork of
this miracle, the first thing that presents itself is the fact, that
nearly every year, when the Nile overflows, the water is rendered




2'70                  ISRAEL IN EeG-YPT1'
more or less turbid and red, by the blood-red marl which is
brought down by the stream  from  the more elevated districts.
"Le Nil," says Laborde, p. 28, " en se r6pandant sur les-rives
et les terrains cuitive's, entraine des amras d'herbes seches et de
saletes quji obligent les habitants a boire son eau dans cet etat
de malproprete ou a se contenter de celle dont ils ont fait provision.  Plus tard, apres ce premier passage, elle enleve une premiere couche de limon, qui nmel   a quelque terre rougeatre, qui
descend des regions les plus 6levees, lui donne une couleur rouge,
qui annonce, qu'elle devient potable, et alors les pots et les jarres
de terre dans lesquelles on la laisse d6poser la rendent bient6t
aussi claire qu'en toute autre saison."
This phenomenon, which is so far from  causing surprise or
annoyance in Egypt, that it is rather anticipated as something
desirable, is generally regarded as the groundwork of the miracle;
and even Henygstenbery advocates this view.  But whilst Eichhorn and his followers look upon the unusual concomitants, the
impurity and stinking of the water, the dying of the fishes, &c.,
as the unnatural exaggerations of the legend, Hengstenberg considers these to have been the result of the miraculous interposition
of God.
We feel obliged to reject this association as inadmissible. (1).
It is at variance with the time when the plague occurred; for,
unless we are entirely mistaken, the plague happened at the beginning of February (~ 25. 2), whereas the Nile does not turn
red till July. (2). This phenomenon is only conceivable at the
period when the Nile overflows; but there is not the least indication of an overflowing in the whole of the narrative before us;
on the contrary, there are several things which lead us to an
opposite conclusion: for exanmple, Pharaoh wtcks to the brainkt of
the river, and the Egyptians dig rorund about the river for water
to drink. (3). The fact that the water became putrid, was an
indication of fermentation and decomposition, and this again of
stagnation. But overflowing and stagnation exclude each other.
(4). The effect of what Aaron did was immediate, it extended
at once to all the canals, and trenches, and pools, which were
connected with the Nile, and even to the water which had previously been taken from  the river and was put by in wooden
and earthen vessels to settle.  Hengstenberg, it is true, endeavours to explain the passage in such a manner as to leave out
the latter, which was evidently the most miraculous part of the




'tLE SIGNS AND WONDEIlS.               71
whole; but he is far from being successful.  When Aaron was
directed (ver. 19) to stretch out his rod over all the streams
(the arms of the Nile), the canals, the trenches, &c., that
they might become blood, and that there might be blood in the
vessels of wood and of earth also; the latter could only refer
to the water, which was in the vessels before the change took
place, and not, as Hengstenzbery explains it, to water which
was taken from  the INile, and placed in the vessels after it
had been turned into blood.  In this we are supported by
the well-known manners and customs of Egypt (cf. Ienygstenberg, p. 107).  The water of the Nile is generally t-urbid,
and is filtered and clarified before it is brought to table.
" Chaque habitant a sa provision d'eau, qu'il plise dans le Nil,
s'il habite sur le bord dn fleuve, ou dans les caneaux derives, qui
l'amenent dans les villes.  Cette eau est toujours trouble quand
on la puise; mais versee dans de grandes jarres de terre, elle
depose son limon avec rapidite" (Lactborcde).  Not only was this
the most miraculous part of the whole miracle, but it was in
reality the point of greatest importance.  It was not intended
that all the water of Egypt should be affected, but that all the
water of the Niae, the source of health and of blessing, the chief
of the deities, should be turned into blood, wherever it might be
found.  And when even the water, which had already been taken
from the river, was thus changed, there could no longer be any
doubt, that it was to the Nile as suc/h that the miracle applied.
The rest of the water, which was not connected with the Nile,
remained unaffected, as verses 22 and 24 -most clearly show.
Quod olim superstitio voluit, sub ipsunm baculi in Nilumn protenti
ictum omnes Nili ejusque canalium, rivorum et stagnorum aquas
ruborem induisse, as Eichhorn says, is in our opinion an exegetical necessity, and therefore we adopt it.  But for this very
reason we cannot admit, that the miracle had any connexion with
the redness of the water at the time of the overflow, which could
not only be foreseen, but was a very gradual process.  (5). The
ordinary redness does not render the water unfit for use; on the
contrary, it cannot be used until it turns red (see the passage
quoted from Laborde), and this phenomenon has no injurious
influence upon the fish in the river.  There is not a single instance on record, in which the water was unfit for use when it was
in this condition.  HengsteberW quotes Abdollatiph to the effect




272                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
that " in the year 1199 the increase of the Nile was less than
had ever been known, and about two months before the first indications of the inundation, the waters of the river assumed a green colour, which went on increasing until it had a foul and putrid taste,"
but the most cursory glance will suffice to show that this phenoinenon has no connexion with the case before us.  The green
colour of the water, at a time when it was stagnant and putrid,
was undoubtedly caused by the decomposition of vegetable matter, which in some way or other had accumulated in the river.
Hengstenberg, it is true, regards the putridity and smell of the
water, as well as the death of the fishes, as a proof that the natural elements in the phenomenon were miraculously intensified.
But even this is inadmissible.  The admixture of the water with
marl, though increased to the utmost extent, would never produce such effects; and the state of the water, from which such
results ensued, must be regarded not as a heightening of the phenomenon referred to, but as a complete alteration, whichl rendered
the water entirely different from what it was before, and brought
the whole occurrence within the range of another series of the
processes of nature.
We must therefore look elsewhere for the natural groundwork
of the miracle.  C. G. Ehrenberg (in Poggendorfs Annalen der
Physik und Chemie, 1830, iv. p. 477-515) has written an article
on " Fresh discoveries of blood-like appearances in Egypt, Arabia,
and Siberia, together with a survey and critical examination of
those already known."  By microscopical observation he found
that a blood-red tinge was given to water by cryptogami (fungi)
and infusoria, and that this was the case on the banks of the
Nile, on the shores of the Red Sea., and in a Siberian river. If
now we accept such a condition as this, as the natural basis of our
miracle, and imagine it heightened to to the utmost possible degree
and rendered universal, as the nature and design of the miracle
required, we can easily explain the whole of the phenomena
described in the text.  The conditions which preceded the developmlent of the microscopical algae, fungi or infusoria, may have
been previously produced in the water of the Nile by the providence of God in a perfectly natural way, and may therefore have
already existed in the water, which had been taken from the Nile
and placed in the filters. The decay and chemical decomposition of these may have rendered the water putrid and offensive;




THE SIGNS AND WONDERS.               273
and the sudden appearance of the blood-red colour may be explained on the supposition that the whole process of growth and
decomposition was accelerated in an extraordinary (miraculous)
way. In this explanation we also retain the mixed character of
the miracle, which was described in ~ 25. 1 as essential and
significant. As Ehrenberg discovered these blood-red phenomena,
during a brief residence in Egypt, both on the banks of the Nile
and elsewhere, they cannot have been unheard of or unknown to
the inhabitants of Egypt at that day; but the terrible intensity
and universality of the phenomenon must have convinced them, if
they had been willing to see and believe, that the hand of God
was there.
We are not informed howv long this plague lasted.  The
seven days spoken of in ver. 25 do not refer to the continuance
of the plague, but to the period wvhich elapsed previous to the
commencement of the second plague. There is no ground for
the assumption that the first plague did not extend to the
Israelites. Such of them as dwelt among the Egyptians were
most certainly affected, but those who lived nearer to the desert
would suffer less, as the distance from the Nile was such that
there must have been wells and cisterns enough to supply their
wants.
The pugport of this plague is very evident, when we consider
the sacredness of the Nile in the religious system of the Egyptians,
the importance of the water of the river, as well as of its abundant supply of fish, and the extent to which the Egyptians depended upon these to supply their daily wants. We will mention
a few of the data, however, which lead to this conclusion, taking
them chiefly from the collection so diligently and carefully made
by Hengstenberg.  l:Ierodotus (ii. 90) speaks of priests of the
Nile; at Nilopolis there was a temple of the Nile; what the
heart is to the body, says an Egyptian, the Nile is to Egypt; it
is one with Osiris (Plut. de Is. et Osir. p. 363 D.), and the
supreme God. On the monuments it is called the god Nile, the
life-giving father of all that exists, the father of the gods, &c.The Egyptians were and still are enthusiastic in favour of the
Nile water, which is in fact almost the only drinkable water in
Egypt. The Turks enjoy the water so much, that they eat salt
in order that they may be able to drink all the more of it. It
is a common saying with them that if Mohammed had tasted it,
VOL. II.                                   S




274                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
he would have prayed to God for immortality, that he might
drink of it for ever. When the Egyptians are absent from their
country, they talk of nothing so much as of the pleasure they
will enjoy, when they return to drink the Nile water again, &c.
On the abundance of the fish in the Nile, see Diodorus Siculus,
Biblioth. 1. i. c. 36: " In the Nile there is an incredible quantity
of fish of every description.  The inhabitants not only partake largely of them  when fresh caught, but keep an inexhaustible supply in pickle." This is fully confirmed by modern
travellers.
Henygstenberg supposes the change in the colour of the water
to have also possessed a symbolical character.  " For the Egyptians," he says, " the reddened water was to be blood, to remind
them of the innocent blood which they had shed, and warn them
of the future shedding of their own blood."  There is an
analogous passage in 2 Kings iii. 22. Moreover, red was regarded by the Egyptians as the colour of Typhon; and therefore
was a symbol of corruption and calamity.
(2). The question "whence did the magicians obtain the
water on which they tried their arts, if ]Moses had already
turned all the water of Egypt into blood," has caused a great
deal of unnecessary thought and gratuitous ridicule. Hengsten..
berg (p. 107) is of opinion that the word " all" should not be
taken literally, " just as we read in chap. ix. 25, that all the
trees were smitten by the hail, and yet it is said in chap. x. 5,
that the locusts devoured all the trees."  But the two cases are
not exactly parallel. And we have seen from ver. 19, how necessary it is, that the word "' all" should be taken literally in the
case before us. Hdvernick's explanation is equally inadmissible.
In his opinion the sorcerers did not make the attempt to imitate
Moses, until the plague had passed away (Einleitung i. 2, p. 417
ARm.).  The question may be most easily answered, if we bear
in mind that it was only the Nile water which was all changed
by Moses, not the water in the wells (as ver. 24 also shows).
~ 27 (Ex. viii. 1 —15).-The first plague produced no effect.
The strong arm of Jehovah had therefore to be brought to bear still
further upon the hard heart of Pharaoh. Fresh plagues followed
one another in rapid succession, until at length his will, though




THE SIGNS AND WONDERS,              275
not his heart, was broken. It was hardly seven days after the
first plague, when the second ensued. Aaron stretched forth
his rod over the waters of Egypt, and innumerable frogs came
up from them, and filled all the houses and utensils of the
Egyptians (1).  The magicians did the same with their enchantments, and brought frogs throughout the land (3). Pharaoh seemed almost inclined to bow before the power of God
He summoned Moses and Aaron, and declared his willingness
to give the required permission to go and celebrate a sacrificial
festival, provided the plague was removed from him and his
people. This apparent change of mind was responded to by the
mercy of Jehovah. Moses, who was appointed as Pharaoh's
God, became his servant, as the nature of a mediator required.
" Exalt thyself over me," he said, " and fix the time when the
plague shall cease." But when the next day arrived, and all the
frogs in the land died, with the exception of those that were in
the water, Pharaoh hardened his heart again, and ceased to
trouble himself about his promise (3).
(1). The Nile and the neighbouring marshes in the low
grounds of Egypt are, as a rule, extraordinarily full of frogs;
but snakes and storks generally prevent their becoming a plague.
The scriptural account itself implies that they usually abounded
in the Nile (ver. 9 and 11). Throughout the whole course of the
plagues, there was a constant increase in the annoyance caused,
or the injury inflicted, and thus the second was more troublesome than the first. In this instance, the increase in the grievance is not to be seen in the fact, that the plague was either more
dangerous, or more injurious, than the previous one, but that it
was more disgusting and repulsive. What rendered the plague
so intolerable was, that the Egyptians could not move a foot,
without treading upon one of these disgusting animals, which
filled their sitting-rooms and bed-chambers, and even swarmed
into their ovens and other utensils. Early writers (e.y. Pliny
h. n. 8. 43, Juslin 15. 2; Aelian anim. 17. 41) furnish accounts
of similar occurrences elsewhere, and relate that whole tribes
s2




276                  ISRAEL TN EGYPT.
have been compelled to emigrate, from their inability to subdue
the plague. There may have been a connexion between this
plague and the previous one, as itivernick and others suppose.
It is possible, that the corrupt state of the Nile water may have
favoured the extraordinary increase in the number of these animals, and thus the germ of the second plague may have been
included in the first; but this would make no difference in the
facts of the case, and the plague would still retain its miraculous character, whatever natural elements might be mixed up
with it. This plague had also a religious significance for the
Egyptians, since it was from the Nile, the source of blessings
and father of the gods, that the foul abomination proceeded.
(2). The sorcerers demonstrated their skill by increasing the
plague, instead of averting it. From the very first, they had
given up all thought of counteracting the effects produced by
Moses; and hlince their only aim was to prove to the king, that
their skill was not inferior to that of Moses. They did this in
the present case, by calling up fresh swarms of frogs from the
Nile by magical expedients. As the Psylli are able to allure the
snakes from their hiding-places by means of incantations, the
magicians may have possessed a similar magical power over other
animals as well.
(3). The fact that Pharaoh was at first inclined to yield (and
we have no reason to doubt his sincerity for a moment), is a
proof that his heart was not yet thoroughly hardened, that he
still possessed a certain amount of susceptibility, for impressions
from the testimony of God. But his relapse, after the plague
had been removed, is also a proof that the process of hardening
had previously commenced, and that it was already determined
and incurable.   The effect produced upon that part of his
inner nature, which was not yet hardened, was not sufficient to
cause a reaction of adequate strength, to counteract the hardening that had already begun. On the contrary, the reaction of
the latter was victorious over the former, as soon as the direct
impression was weakened by the cessation of the plague (cf.
~ 21. 2).
~ 28 (Ex. viii. 16-19).-The third plague filled the air
with immense swarms of gnats (1).  The manner in which this




THE SIGNS AND WONDERS.              277
plague was produced, is particularly worthy of notice. Aaron
smote the dust of the ground with his rod. The second plague
had issued from the fertilizing Nile; the third proceeded from
the fruit-bearing soil of Egypt. The Nile represented the male or
fructifying principle of the deified powers of nature; the fruitful
soil of the country the female or receptive principle. Instead of
the fructifying blessing, there came forth from the Nile only that
which was loathsome and an abomination; and instead of a lifesustaining blessing, the soil produced only misery and suffering
for man and beast. The magicians again attempted to do the
same with their enchantments; but this time without success.
They were therefore obliged to confess: " this is the finger of
God."
(1). No one has any doubt now that the:. of the third
plague were GNATS or mosquitoes (oKvwtesE), as the Septuagint
and Vulgate render the word, and not lice, the rendering given
by the Rabbins, Luther, Bochart (and the English versionTr.). Travellers are unanimous in pronouncing the Egyptian
mosquitoes a terrible plague to both man and beast. Laborde
says (p. 32): l'animal le plus inappergu et cependant le plus
terrible de la creation.         Combien de fois une seule
de ces petites mouches ne m'a-t-elle pas conte une nuit entiere.
Un seul cousin d'Egypte suffit pour mettre au supplice. Herodotus (ii. 95) knew it to be a plague of the country,
and describes the precautions which were taken by the Egyptians
to defend themselves from its painful sting. It is also quite in
accordance with natural history, that the biblical narrative speaks
of them as coming from the dust, where the last generation had
deposited its eggs.
(2). When the magicians acknowledge: " this is the finger of
JElohim," a confession forced from them by the failure of their
incantations, they are generally supposed to have meant by
Elolhim the God of Israel, and therefore to have admitted the
supremacy of Jehovah. But neither the words themselves, nor
the subsequent history, will harmonize with this interpretation
(cf. chap. ix. 11). Had this been their meaning, they would have




278                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
said Jeehovah instead of Elohim, for it was by this name that
MiLoses ha-d aliways spoken to Pharaoh of the God of Israel. And
if they had intendced to describe their present obvious incapacity,
as the consequence of an interposition and hindrance on the part
of the God of' Israel, we should certainly expect to find the expression, the arm of God, rather than the finger of God.  The
arm would denote victorious power; the finger merely means
admonitory warning and instruction. For these reasons we are
rather inclined to the conclusion that the CharthumLmim, when
using this expression, did not go beyond the limits of the religious
system of the Egyptians, and that by Elobim they meant, not
the God of Israel, but their own deities combined in one. The
refusal of their deities to assist them at the third plague, they
did not regard as a proof of the weakness of those deities; but
rather as a sign that the gods of Egypt themselves acknowledged
the justice of Israel's demands, and for that reason alone refused
to continue the contest with the God of Moses. The position of
the Charthulmmim was so painful and humiliating, that they
-would have been glad to put an end to the whole affair as quickly
as possible, and eagerly embraced the opportunity of representing their deities as no longer willing that they should proceed
any further. The expression employed by them, undoubtedly
implied a wish and suggestion on their part, that Pharaoh should
accede to the request of the people; but it by no means involved
a confession of the God of Israel, or of their own conversion to
him.  The Charthummim still retained the office and dignity
which they possessed before (chap. ix. 11). But as Pharaoh
did not attend to w'.at they had announced to him as the will
of the gods, he had no longer any right to call them in, to exercise
their magical arts in the subsequent plagues.
~ 29 (Ex. viii. 20-32).-The fourth plague brought flies
and other insects throughout the land, and into the houses of the
Egyptians (1); whilst the whole of Goshen, and all the houses of
the Israelites, continued perfectly free (2). This time, Pharaoh
offered to allow the people to sacrifice in the land itself, but not
to leave the country. But when Moses refused to accede to this,
and insisted upon his original demand, Pharaoh promised all,




THE SIGNS AND WONDERS.               279
provided he would intercede for him and remove the plague.
But the king only broke his word again.
(1). The fourth plagyue is described as a plague of puny.
This word is rendered by the Septuagint, tvv6zlta or DOG-FLIES
(tabanus caecutiens L.); by Aquila, 7rauLv-ca; and similarly by
the Vulgate, omne genus mzuscarum; by Luther, " all kinds of
insects."  Geseniuzs (in his thesaurus) supports the Septuagint
rendering, and traces the word to the verb =-)s, with the meaning dulcis, suavisfuit (" a dulcedinis notione fbrtasse ductus est
sugendi significatus).  WVe prefer to derive it from the same
verb, with another of its meanings, viz., miscuit, and therefore
would render it MEDLEY  - flying insects of different kinds (Geschmeiss).  At the same time we willingly admit, that the Septuagint so far displays an acquaintance with the language and
the circumstances, that the dog-fly is the most important of the
insects of Egypt, and causes the most annoyance to both man
and beast. We may learn from a passage, which Hengstenberg
has copied from Sonnini's travels (iii. 226), how troublesome
the flies are in Egypt at ordinary times: " The most numerous
and troublesome insects in Egypt are the flies (muscae domesticae L.). AMen and beasts are cruelly tormented by them. You
can form no conception of their fury, when they want to settle upon
any part of your body. You may drive them away, but they
settle again immediately, and their obstinacy wearies out the most
patient man. They are particularly fond of fixing on the corners
of the eyes, or the edges of the eyelids, sensitive parts to which
they are attracted by a little moisture." Philo (de vita Mos. T. ii.
p. 101, ed. Mang.) speaks quite as strongly of the boldness of the
dog-fly and the pain which it causes.  For other explanations
see Bochart, hieroz. T. iii. p. 30, ed. Rosenmiiller.  Jonatha~n,
for example, gives mixta turba ferarum; Saadias, mistura ferarum; Jarchi, omnes species malarum bestiarum et serpentumn et
scorpionum inter se permixtas; Oedmann suggests the Blatta
orientalis; Laborde, a species of worm, of which there are at
times a fearful number in Egypt, whilst the havoc caused by
them is indescribable.  In confirmation of this he appeals to a
passage of lMakrizi, which is also cited by lengstenberg.
(2). Although the second and third plagues were of such a




280                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
nature, that we can imagine it quite as easy that the land of
Goshen should be free from them  as from the fourth; yet the
narrative admits of no other conclusion, than that it was not till
the fourth, that the distinction was made.  The solemn manner
in which it is announced in ver. 22 as something peculiar, and
the stress laid upon it in the words " to the end thou mayest
know, that I am Jehovah in the midst of the landl;-and I will
put a division between my people and thy people; to-morrow
shall this sign be," preclude the supposition that this had been
the case before.
(3). The ground assigned by iMkoses, for refusing to accede to
Pharaoh's proposal that they should sacrifice in the land, was this:
" we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians, and they
will stone us, when they see it."  Hengstenberg (p. 114) justly
opposes the current notion, that the reason why opposition was
anticipated from the Egyptians, was that the Israelites would
probably sacrifice animals, which the Egyptians considered sacred.
The term  " abomination" was not applicable to the sacred animals; and the animals which the Israelites offered in sacrifice were,
the same as those which the Egyptians themselves employed.
In.Hengstenbery's opinion the ground of' offence was that the
Israelites omitted to make a strict examination of the animals
sacrificed, whilst the Egyptians attended to this with the most
scrupulous care. But we agree with Bacumgarten, in thinking
such an explanation too restricted. For it must not be overlooked, that the words of Moses in ver. 27, " We will sacrifice to Jehovah our God, as he szall command us," show
that he himself, with his consciousness of the regenerating and
initiatory importance of this sacrifice (~ 20. 4), did not rightly
know what its exact nature would be; many things therefore
might be done, which would excite the abhorrence of the Egyptians and exasperate their minds.  The fears, which Moses
entertained, that if the Israelites should offer their sacrifices in
the land (Goshen) itself, they might be surprised in the midst
of their festival, were justified by the fact, that after the expulsion of the Hyksos (~ 43 sqq.) the eastern frontier of Egypt
was strongly defended by a military force (~ 14. 6.? 4).
~ 30. (Ex. ix. 1-12).-Thefifthplague was a murrain, which
destroyed all the cattle that were in the fields at the time. Israel




THE SIGNS AND WONDERS.              281
was entirely exempt from this plague also.-As Pharaoh was
equally unaffected by this plague, the sixth plague followed.
Moses and Aaron took ashes in their hand from a hearth, and,
casting them into the air, produced grievous boils and blisters (2)
on men and beasts throughout all the land of Egypt (3). Even
the magicians, whom we may suppose to have been always present at the interviews between Pharaoh and Moses, were so fearfully affected with this disease that they were unable to stand
before Moses on account of the boils.
(1). There can be no doubt that the ceremony, with which
the sixth plague was introduced, was selected for a particular
purpose, and therefore had a symbolical meaning. To ascertain
what this symbolical meaning was, it is necessary that we should
first of all determine the signification of the words,nD and
~Ita:. The lexicographers, since 1Jichaelis (suppl. p. 1212), are
unanimously of opinion that the latter denotes a furnace, used
for burning lime or melting metals, in distinction from B.n,
the ordinary oven or stove. But the etymology is so uncertain,
that this meaning is by no means to be accepted as indisputable
on the mere authority of a Kinchi. It seems to us far more
suitable to trace the word to the Arabic  _.S; (meaning candere,
urere, incenseum esse), than to At -- pedibus calcavit, subegit,
oppressit (sc. a metallis et mineribus domandis), which is the derivation preferred by Gesenius. But in that case the etymology
shows no essential difference betwveen IVZZ and bo1on. Nor is
any such difference admitted by the Septuagint and the Vulgate
(auturvo9, caminus). Ka/',uvos is applied to the oven and stove,
quite as much as to the smelting furnace; to the forge, as well as
to the domestic hearth.  rn7-, (LXX: alOa'X, Vulg. Cinis), is
generally rendered soot. Etymologically it means that which can
be blown away, cinder-dust, favilla. But the ordinary usage
has not retained the original distinction, between the ashes which
have been burned to powder, and the larger cinders (cinis,.,t).
-Starting from the meanings soot and furnace, M1. Baumgarten
(p. 448), has given an explanation of the ceremony, which is
certainly very ingenious, and with such premises possibly plau



282                   ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
sible:' As the water of the Nile in the first and second plagues,
and the dust of the earth in the third, were not elements accidentally fixed upon, the soot of the furnace must have had some
connexion with the plague to which it gave rise.  In the furnaces in which metal was prepared, there was concentrated a great
part of the energy, put forth in connexion with those great buildings, on which the Egyptians rested their fame. In the soot of
these furnaces there was seen the baser, dirtier side of this boasted
splendour; and when by the hand of Mfoses the soot brought out
blisters on the skin of the Egyptians, this was the judgment of
God upon their pride, as well as upon their magnificent buildings
at which the Israelites had been compelled to labour." In addition, however, to the uncertainty of the etymological basis on
which this explanation rests, it may still farther be objected that
the buildings and monuments of the Egyptians were not of
metal, but of stone; and though metal was used in connexion
with them, it does not appear to have been sufficiently important, for such special reference to be made to it in the ceremony
before us.-Hdvernick, (p. 182), on the other hand, points to the
custom, which, according to Plutar-ch (de Is. et Osir, p. 318 ed.
Hutt.), prevailed among the Egyptians in the very earliest times,
of scattering the ashes of the sacrifices, especially the human
sacrifices, as a ceremony of purification.  It is true, Herodotus
(2. 45) denies that human sacrifices ever occurred among the
Egyptians; but this only proves that they were not offered in his
day. We give the preference to Hdivernick's explanation, but
would give it a less limited application.  We take ttV:l in its
most general signification offire-place.  If now we might further
imagine, that the fire-place referred to here was one set apart for
burning the sacrificial animals, for the purpose of obtaining their
purifying ashes, and that Moses could or durst take the ashes
from such a fire-place, the great significance of the ceremony
would be placed before us in the clearest light.  The ashes,
which were intended to purify, produced uncleanness; and thus
it was symbolically declared that the religious purification, promised by the sacrificial worship of the Egyptians, was nothing
but defilement.  But even supposing that there is no foundation for any of these conjectures, the fact will still remain, that
ashes in general (on account of their being used in lie), were
a means of purification (cf Num. xix.), and therefore that




THE SIGNS AND WONDERS.              283
the means of purification here became the cause of defilement.
(2). Amidst the great variety of inflammatory eruptions on the
skin, we do not possess the necessary data for a more particular
diagnosis of the disease produced by the sixth plague. So much,
however, is certain, that the climate of Egypt predisposes to such
diseases in a most extraordinary manner.
(3). Though it is not expressly stated, that Israel was exempt
from this plague, the narrative evidently implies it. And in
general, there is no reason to doubt that from the fourth plague,
when the distinction was not only first made between the Israelites
and the Egyptians, but was so emphatically pointed out as most
significant, this distinction formed an element in all the miracles,
which were afterwards performed.
~ 31. (Ex. ix. 13 —x. 29).-The seventh pplague —thunder,
lightning, and hail —was announced with increased solemnity (1).
If any of the Egyptians had been sufficiently impressed by what
had already occurred, to pay attention to the word of Jehovah
and fear it; sufficient time was given them, after the announcement of the plague, to gather their servants and cattle into their
houses before it commenced, and thus save them from destruction.
But whatever men or cattle remained in the field, were smitten
by the fearful storm of hail. Moreover the spring crop, which
was nearly ripe, was entirely destroyed. In the land of Goshen
alone there was no hail.-Pharaoh again promised every thing;
but, as soon as the plague ceased at the intercession of Moses, he
refused to perform any thing.  The eighth plague had therefore
to be announced, the devastation of the country by locusts (2).
The people of Egypt, who were suffering severely, began now
to cry to their king, to let Israel go; lest Egypt should be entirely
destroyed through his obstinacy.  And Pharaoh himself was
sufficiently alarmed, to know that the words of Moses were not
empty threats. He seemed even likely to anticipate the threatened
plague by submission. But he had no sooner given the permission required, from his fear of further judgments from God,




284                ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
than his hardened heart was again steeled against it, and he
refused to allow any but the men to depart, whilst he retained
their wives and children and all their cattle, as a guarantee for
their return. The messengers of Jehovah could not consent to
this; and the plague immediately commenced. A continuous
east wind brought such a dense swarm of locusts into the land,
that the sun was obscured; and when they settled, the whole
country was covered. The devastation, which they caused, was
so great, that not a leaf remained upon the trees, nor a blade of
grass in the fields. The pride of Pharaoh seemed broken now;
he confessed that he had sinned against Jehovah, and sued for
mercy. But the west wind, which carried off the locusts, took
away his hypocritical repentance also. The locusts perished in
the Red Sea; they were the precursors of Pharaoh with his
horses and riders. Every one of the plagues had hitherto been
announced to the king beforehand. This rendered it impossible,
on the one hand, that he should regard them as anything but
divine judgments; and on the other hand it gave him the opportunity of escaping the evil, by changing his mind. But henceforth this double precaution ceased. Without any announcement,
however, the king knew whence the plague had come; and his
hardness had increased to such an extent, that the rest could
only be regarded as judgments from which he could not escape.
Thus the ninth plagzue broke upon him without preparation,
viz. such dense darkness (3) for three days, both out of doors
and in the houses, that they could not see one another. But in
the houses of the Israelites, it remained perfectly light and clear.
Pharaoh capitulated again. He said he would allow the men
to go with their wives and children, but the cattle and sheep
must be left behind. Moses rejected these conditions, and the
two parted from each other in great excitement and anger.
(1). A thunderstorm accompanied by hail is by no means a
2




TiE SIGNS AND WONDERS.              285
rare occurrence in Egypt, at least in the Delta; though in the
usual way it is almost unknown in the more elevated districts.
Cf. Laborde p. 42. It is important to observe the emphatic and
elaborate manner, in which this plague was announced.  There
must certainly have been some other reason for this, than the fact
that the present plague fell much more heavily, than any that had
preceded it. To our mind, a stronger reason is to be found in
the increasing hardness of Pharaoh's heart.  It is in connexion
with the previous plague (chap. ix. 12), that this hardening is
first spoken of as an effect produced in Pharaoh by God himself
(except in the objective announcement which was made to Moses
at the first). This evidently implies, that a turning-point had been
reached; and it also explains the reason, that the king was now for
the first time made aware of the manner, in which his hardness and
hostility to the will of God were to be made to subserve the glory
of His name.  Although Jehovah might have displayed his
supremacy over the gods of Egypt, by the plagues that had
already been inflicted; Pharaoh could still proudly boast, that with
all his power and with all his efforts, Jehovah had not conquered
him. Hitherto it had not been the will of Pharaoh, but that of
Jehovah, which eventually succumbed. This miserable pride and
defiance on his part were now put before him in their proper
light; and he was made to learn, that with all his proud selfwill, he was only serving the purpose and plans of God: " for
this have I raised thee up, to show in thee my power, and that
my name be declared in all the earth" (ver. 16); cf chap. xi. 9,
" Pharaoh shall not hearken to you, that my wonders may be
multiplied in the land of Egypt."
The warning advice (ver. 19), to collect the men and cattle
out of the fields, and shelter them in their houses from the
threatened hail, was intended for the benefit of as many of
Pharaoh's servants and subjects, as had learned to fear the word
of Jehovah; and they profited by it (ver. 20). But it was also
intended for Pharaoh, to whom it was first addressed. And,
though it is not expressly stated, we may gather with certainty
from the general tenor of the narrative, that he paid no attention to
the warning,-another proof that the most marked provisions of
mercy only increase the hardness of the hardened man. From his
past experience, the king could not possibly doubt that the threatened punishment would be inflicted; but his proud and defiant




286                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
spirit would not let him reap the benefit, which the warning put
within his reach.
(2). There has been an incalculable amount of writing on the
natural history of the locusts in general, and the scriptural references to them in particular. Laborde mentions the titles of a
hundred and seventy-five different works, which he says that he
consulted and used, in hiscomplete and careful investigation of the
subject (p. 44 sqq.); and yet the catalogue is far from being complete. The fact that the direction taken by a swarm of locusts is
dependent upon the wind, has been confirmed by the observations
of travellers a thousand times.  And the thorough devastation
which they are here said to have caused, as well as their eventual destruction in the sea, have been frequently witnessed.
According to the biblical narrative, they were brought by the
east wind,  1~ m'?   Even the Septuagint stumbled at this,
and rendered the words a've/Aoq vPOTO ( Vuy. ventus urens). This
rendering has been adopted by Bochart, who is of opinion that
gTn~ must here mean the south wind, as the east wind could
only have brought the locusts from Arabia, whereas the south
wind would bring them from Ethiopia, where they are much more
numerous. Hasselquist endeavours to prove that the locusts
always take the same direction, viz. from south to north. Eichhorn (p. 26) thinks that, as the locusts are invariably driven by
a blind impulse from south to north, and never turn towards the
east or west, the swarms must always have come to Egypt from
Ethiopia, and never from Arabia.  And Bohlen (Gen. p. 56)
makes use of this, as a proof that our author was not acquainted
with the natural history of Egypt.  But Credner (Joel p. 286)
has brought many witnesses to prove that locusts follow every
wind, and (p. 288) has also shown that they not only cross over
narrow straits, such as those of Gibraltar, &c., but that when
their flight is favoured by the wind, they will pass over seas
as broad as the Mediterranean itself.  But when the wind does
not favour their flight-when, for example, it rises to a tempest,
or suddenly drops-the whole swarm will fall immediately into
the sea.  Niebuhr (Beschreib. p. 169) also attests the fact that
the wind sometimes carries swarms of locusts across the. Arabian
Gulf, even at its broadest part.  Cf. Hengstenbery, Egypt and
Moses, p. 11 sqq., and Laborde, p. 50 sqq.:>;7 is never used in the Scriptures to denote the south wiind,




'THE SIGNS AND WONDERS.             287
but always means the east wind. It is the more important that
we should maintain this firmly, since it is probable that in the
present instance, there was some significance in the direction in
which they came.  They came from the same quarter as the
Israelites, and they appeared as their champions and allies. But
if this explanation should be given up as too far-fetched, we
think that Baumgarten (p. 454) is certainly right in laying
stress upon the fact, that they were not produced in Egypt itself,
but came from a distant, foreign land, as a proof that " the power
of Jehovah reached beyond the bounds of Egypt, i.e., was everywhere present."
(3). The THREE DAYS' DARKNESS is now generally traced to
the Egyptian Sirocco or Chainsin (cf. Hengstenberg, Hdvernick,
and others). The horrors of this phenomenon are described by
nearly every traveller.  DuZ Bois Ayme (p. 110) says: " When
the Chamsin blows, the sun is of a pale yellow colour; its light
is obscured, and the darkness sometimes increases to such an extent that one might fancy it was the depth of night." According
to other accounts, the inhabitants of the towns and villages shut
themselves up in their houses, sometimes in the lowest rooms, or
even in the cellars, whilst dwellers in the desert take refuge in
their tents, or in holes which they have dug in the ground. Robinson (i. 288) was in the desert during one Chamsin of short
duration: "The wind," he says, " changed suddenly to the south,
and came upon us with violence and intense heat, until it blew
a perfect tempest. The atmosphere was filled with fine particles
of sand, forming a blueish haze; the sun was scarcely visible,
his disk exhibiting only a dim and sickly hue, and the glow of
the wind came upon our faces as from a burning oven. Often
we could not see ten rods around us, and our eyes, ears, mouths,
and clothes were filled with sand."  Rosenmiilter, in his commentary, cites accounts from the middle ages, according to which
the Chamsin covered Egypt with such dense darkness, that every
one thought the last day was at hand. Laborde, however, will
not admit that there is any resemblance between the Chamsin
and the darkness referred to here: "Ce serait comparer la
detonation d'un fusil au fracas du tonnerre que d'assimiler deux
extremes de ce genre." —In the scriptural account of this plague,
there is certainly no intimation of its being in any way connected
with a scorching wind of this description. Still the phenomena,




288                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
which accompany the Chamsin, though very different in degree,
are so similar in kind, that we are inclined to agree with those
who regard the Chamsin as its natural basis. It must, however,
at the. same time be acknowledged, that none of the earlier
plagues were raised so decidedly or to such an extent above their
natural basis, through the peculiar character imparted by the
miracle; and that none were so completely dissevered in some
respects from that basis, as was the case here. In the present
instance not only was the plague extended and intensified to a
degree unheard of before, but in many respects it was entirely
removed from the natural foundation, and passed over into the
sphere of the pure miracle, in which no known power of nature
is in any way employed. This is particularly seen in the fact,
that it continued perfectly light in the houses of the Israelites,
some of which immediately adjoined those of the Egyptians,
whilst the Egyptians were unable to escape in any way from the
darkness, by which they were surrounded. For when it is said
in the biblical account, that the darkness was so great that they
could not see one another, and therefore that no one could rise
up from the place in which he was: the meaning undoubtedly
is, that even in their houses the ordinary means of procuring
artificial light were entirely useless. It may also be inferred
from the express statement, to the effect that no one moved
from his place during the three days' darkness, and from the
nature of the interview which Pharaoh had with Moses, that
the latter was not sent for till the plague was over. On the
meaning of this plague Hengstenberg correctly observes, that
the darkness which covered the Egyptians, and the light which
the Israelites enjoyed, represented the wrath and the mercy of
God.
THE PASSOVER.
~ 32. (Ex. xi. 1-10).-All possibility of further negotiation
was now, apparently, for ever gone. For Pharaoh had threatened
Moses with death, if he should dare to let him see him again,
and 1Moses had replied with equal wrath, "so let it be, I will




'THE PASSOVER.                  289
never come into thy presence again" (x. 28, 29, xi. 8). And
yet the promise of Jehovah immediately followed: "I will bring
one plague more upon Pharaoh, and upon Egypt; afterwards
he will let you go hence, and not merely let you go, but will
himself entreat and force you to depart. " Of the previous plagues
some (viz., the first and second) had come, at a signal from
Moses, from the beneficent river of Egypt, others (the third and
fourth) from the fertile soil of the country, and others from the
pure air, which pervaded the land; all the elements, which were
at work in Egypt, had been one after another turned into a
curse. And when that which was peculiarly Egyptian had been
all exhausted, the countries round about sent their plagues into
Egypt also; locusts came from the desert of Arabia, and the
Sirocco with its impenetrable darkness from the Sahara. Yet
all was apparently in vain.  But this had been merely introductory and preparatory to the last decisive stroke. The tenth plague
did not rest upon any natural basis,. as all the rest had done.
It was not called forth by either the rod or hand of Moses, nor
did it proceed from the water, the earth, or the air; but the
hand of Jehovah himself was stretched forth: "at midnight
will I go out into the midst of Egypt, and smite all the firstborn in Egypt, both of man and beast (1), and I qwill execute
judgment against all the gods of the Egyptians (2), I Jehovah
(xii. 12) — but against the children of Israel not a dog shall
move his tongue, that ye may learn how that Jehovah doth put
a difference between Egypt and Israel."  In the tenth _plague
the idea and intention of all the plagues were embodied and
fulfilled. It was thought of first (chap. iv. 22, 23), but it was
necessarily the last to appear. If it had also been the first to
appear, the fact would not have been so completely and universally displayed, that Jehovah was the Lord in the mzidst of the
land (chap. viii. 22), the Lord over the water, the earth, and
the air, over gods and men, cattle and plants, and that there vwas
VOL. II.                                    T




290                  ISRAEL IN EG:YPr1'.
none like him in adl the earth (ix. 14). For this purpose it was
necessary, that there should be many miracles wrought in the
land of Egypt (xi. 9); and it was also requisite, that they should
have both sharply defined natural features and an unmistakeably
miraculous character, in order that freedom of choice might be
left for faith or unbelief.  But the tenth plague bore upon the
face of it a purely supernatural character, and because it was
the tenth, i.e. the one which gave a finish and completeness to the
whole, it exhibited in a clear and unequivocal manner, the design
of all the plagues from the very commencement; for the last
furnished the key to the entire series. And inasmuch as Pharaoh's resistance was overcome by the tenth plague, although the
hardness of his heart was complete; this fact alone was sufficient
to prove, that the obstinacy of his refusal had only served to
glorify the name of Jehovah, and that the words of Jehovah
were fulfilled: " For this cause have I raised thee tup, to show in
thee my power, and that my name may be declared throughout
all the earth." (ix. 16).
(1). On the importance of the first-born, Hofmann says (Weissagung und Erfiillung i. 122): " The first-born opens the mother's
womb, and thus renders all succeeding births possible; and hence
the power, which deprived all the first-born of life, was also a
proof of ability to control the future history of the existing
generation, and the perpetuation of its life by means of posterity.
The same power, which punished the existing generation, could
also have annihilated all its prospects for the future."   We
cannot possibly comprehend, how this acute writer can have hit
upon so mistaken an explanation.  The notion, with which he
starts, that the first birth renders all succeeding births possible,
is completely wrong. No doubt the predicate, " that which openeth
the womb," implies a precedence on the part of the first-born
over the rest. But assuredly no Israelite ever explained this as
meaning, that the first-begotten alone as such possessed the power
"to open the womb," and that the possibility of any subsequent
births depended entirely upon him.  But the rest of Ho/fnann's




THE PASSOVER.                   291
remarks are at variance with this fundamental thought.  The
first-born, on whom the plague fell, were already born, they had
already opened the way for further births. How then could their
death appear to threaten the prospect of other births?  The real
importance of the first-born may be thus explained: the first-born
naturally enjoyed both precedence and pre-eminence over the
rest, he was the firstling of his father's strength (Gen. xlix. 3),
the first-fruit of his mother. As the first-born, he stood at the
head of the others, and was destined to be the chief of whatever
family might be formed by the succeeding births. As he stood
at the head of the whole, he represented the entire nation of the
Egyptians.  Hence the power, which slew all the first-born in
Egypt, was exhibited as a power, which could slay all, that were
born then, and, in the slaughter of the whole of'the first-born,
the entire body of the people were ideally slain.
(2). The question arises in connexion with chap. xii. 12: how
could the death of all the first-born, of both man and beast, be
regarded as a judgment upon all the gods of Egpt? One might
be inclined to think, that the previous signs and wonders could
have been much more correctly described as a victory over all
the gods of Egypt, and a j udgment upon them, than the tenth
plague, which was not nearly so closely connected with the objects which the Egyptians worshipped as gods.  But the fact,
that this plague was intended as a judgment upon the gods of
Egypt in a more eminent degree than any of the rest, is evident
from the repetition of this same view in Num. xxxiii. 4: "' the
Egyptians buried all their first-born, for upon their gods also
Jehovah executed judgment."  And here we may clearly see, in
what relation the death of' all the first-born stood to the gods of
Egypt.  The gods of Egypt, as the passage before us clearly
shows, were among those who were smitten by this plague.
And we agree with J. D. Michaelis (Anmerkungen fur Ungelehrte iii. 35) in the opinion, that reference is made to the
animal-worship of Egypt (cf. J. C. Prichard, Egyptian mythology). A large number of animals were regarded by the Egyptians as sacred, probably because they looked upon them as
incarnations of the deity.  If any of these animals were found
dead, there was lamentation and mourning on every hand. It
was a capital offence to slay or injure them. A few specimens
of them were kept in the temples, and were objects of public
T2




292                  [SltAEL i.N EGYPT.
worship.  Such was the importance generally attached to plimogeniture in the whole of the ancient world, that it is very probable that the first-born were most frequently, if not invariably,
chosen for that purpose. Fancy, then, what an effect must have
been produced, what alarm it must have caused, what unbounded
lamentation there must have been, if all the sacred animals in
the temples, and thousands of them outside the temples, were
struck dead it one night.  Such an occurrence would be truly
a judgment on the gods of Egypt; and for Egyptians at least, a
judgment of a more fearful character, and one more calculated
to produce despair, could not possibly have occurred. But the
expression contained in chap. xii. 12 must not be restricted to
this.  The strong emphasis laid upon the fact, that judgment
was to be exedutted upon all the gods of Egypt, when taken in
connexion with the announcement so constantly made, that this
plague would fall upon all the first-born of tmen and cattle, leads
to the conclusion that men were also reckoned among the gods,
who were to be slain. Our thoughts are naturally directed first
of all to Pharaoh; not, however, in the sense in which the
princes of the earth are described as gods, but rather in that
sense in which, as the vain-glorious inscriptions on the monuments prove, the Egyptian kings prided themselves upon being
sons of the gods, or incarnations of the deities.  This explanation derives all the more weight from the fact, that during the
whole of the negotiations with Moses, Pharaoh takes an independent stand in opposition to Jehovah.  Moreover, the circumstance, that it was not merely the first-born of the god-king
Pharaoh and of the sacred animals, that were slain, but all the
first-born of man and beast, from the son of Pharaoh, who sat
upon his throne, to the son of the slave-woman, that stood behind the mill, from the Apis, that was kept in the temple, and
worshipped as a god, to the most common and unclean of the
beasts, was the most humiliating part of the whole to the gods
of Egypt, for it was a practical declaration of the absolute equality
of both of them. In contrast with the great significance of the
announcement, when thus explained, we notice the interpretation
given by the Jewish expositors, who institute a comparison between this plague and the miracle wrought on the image of
Dagon in the temple at Ashdod (1 Sam. v.): an interpretation
which must be rejected as without foundation, and thoroughly




rTHE PASsovERn.                  293
indefensible.  Thus, for example, Jonathan paraphrases the passage as follows: " In orunia idola Aegyptioruin edam quatuor
judicia: idola fusa colliquescent, lapidea concidentur, testacea
confringentur, lignea in  cinerem  redigentur, ut cognoscant
Aegyptii me esse Dominum."
~ 33. But certain important preparations were required, before this last decisive blow could be struck.  As one of the
leading features of this plague it is stated in chap. xi. 7: " Ye
shall learn how that Jehovah doth put a difference between
Egiypt and Israel."  The separation of Israel was the fundamental idea of the ancient covenant, the basis of its history.
What, then, were the conditions and pre-requisites of this separation?  They are to be found in the first stages of the history of
Israel: on the one hand the call of Abraham, the creation of
his seed from an unfruitful body, and the appointment of this
seed to bring salvation to the world; and on the other hand, the
self-surrender and self-dedication of Israel to the purposes of
Jehovah in faith and obedience to his will and guidance. But
nearly four hundred years had passed since then, and during
that time the natural side of Israel's character, that in which
every other nation perfectly resembled it, had been almost exclusively developed and in active operation.  In consequence of
this, the other side of its character, by which it was distinguished
from other nations, had retreated so far into the background,
and in the process of development had been so completely left
behind, that it was necessary to renew both the election and the
covenant.  Moreover, Israel in the meantinle had entered upon
a new stage; it had passed from the famiily to the nation, and
the covenant made with the family had to be transferred to the
nation into which it had grown.  The covenant with the fathers
was, no doubt, in existence still; for Jehovah still continued
to be the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob (ii. 24), and
Israel still bore the sign of' this covennt in his flesh (xii. 48):




294.SRAEL IN EGYPT.
but the covenant itself had been in abeyance for four hundred
years; it had not made the least advance during all that period;
and in the sphere of life and motion, stagnation is equivalent to
retrogression.  The covenant, therefore, required to be resuscitated, enlivened, and set forth, and also to be confirmed and
transferred to the nation, which now occupied the place of the
family.-Moses had already been informed that this was to take
place on Horeb, the Mount of God, (iii. 12); and for this very
purpose Pharaoh was to be compelled to let the people go into
the desert, that they might celebrate a festival to Jehovah.
Hence, it was in Horeb, first of all, that the renewed-and perfect
seal of separation from the nations, the stamp, which henceforth
distinguished it from all others, was impressed upon Israel.
But the obduracy of Pharaoh, the hostility of his people to
the nation, which Jehovah had begotten from the seed of Abraham to be his first-born son (chap. iv. 22), and the consequent
necessity for executing judgment upon Pharaoh and his nation,
had already shown the nature of that distinction which God was
about to make between Egypt and Israel (chap. xi. 7).  There
had been a marked difference ever since the fourth plague
(chap. viii. 22); but now at the tenth and concluding plague,
it was to be practically demonstrated in a manner unparalleled
before.  The earlier plagues were chiefly intended to alarm
and call to repentance; the tenth, on the other hand, was
a pure act of judgment (chap. xii. 12).  The fact that Israel
was Abraham's seed, was sufficient protection from the former;
but this no longer sufficed to defend them from the latter.
Jehovah was now preparing to pass in judicial majesty through
the land of Egypt. But judgment requires stern and impartial
justice, fettered by no considerations, and admitting of no exceptions; and it is right that judgment should begin at God's
own house (1 Pet. iv. 17). If; then, there was something ungodly in Israel itself; if the seal of its election and separation




T-IE PASSOVER.                  295
was obliterated; if its sanctification was imperfect and faulty; if
its natural character was stronger than that imparted by grace:
the judicial majesty of God could not pass over Israel, although
it was Abraham's seed, but his judgment would surely fall upon
the Israelites as well as the Egyptians. Nevertheless Israel was
to be saved. It was necessary, however, that before the judicial
wrath of Jehovah burst forth, the Israelites should be prepared
by grace, or they would be unable to escape the judgment;
their sins must be expiated, all ground for the wrath of God
must be removed, and their fellowship with God must be renewed
and fortified.  This was accomplished by the institution of the
Passover. The feast of the passover was a precursor of that
festival, which the nation was about to celebrate in the desert in
honour of its God; the paschal sacrifice was an anticipation of
the sacrifice about to be offered on the Mount of God in Horeb,
a preliminary demonstration of its power and its effects, a
guarantee for the future.
~ 34 (Ex. xii. 1-28).-The period fixed for the last plague
that was to fall upon the Egyptians, and for the celebration of
the passover (1) by the Israelites, was the fourteenth day of the
month of green ears; but as early as the tenth, the father of every
household was to select a lamb without blemish, and to keep it
till the fourteenth day of the month (2), when it was to be slain
between the evenings (3).  The lintel of the door and the two
posts were then to be marked with its blood; in order that, when
Jehovah passed through the land of Egypt, to slay all the firstborn, he might pass over the houses of the Israelites, and not
suffer the destroyer to enter them (4).  The lamb was then to
be roasted without breakicng a bone, and to be eaten with bitter
herbs. Whatever might remain was to be burned. The bread
eaten at this meal was to be unleavened.  Moreover they were to
eat it, like persons in a hurry to depacart, with a staif in their




296                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
hand, with their loins girded, and with their shoes on their/fet
(5).  To commemorate the important design and grand results
of this festival, their descendants were ordered to repeat it every
year, and to keep it as a seven days' feast, neither eating leavened
bread nor suffering any to be found in their houses, for seven
days after they had partaken of the Paschal lamb.  Foreigners,
and servants who were not of Israelitish descent, were prohibited
from taking part in the Paschal meal, unless they had been previously incorporated in the community by circumcision.  The
heads of families were required to instruct their children at an
early age, as to the meaning of this solemn ceremony. Moreover
this month was to be henceforth regarded as the first month of the
year, because it awas the period of Israel's redemption, and formed
a fresh commencement to Israel's history.  When MIoses made
this announcement to the people, they bowed and worshipped,
and did as Jehovah had commanded.
N.B.- It does not form part of our plan, to enter at present
into a full examination of all the directions contained in the
law for the observance of the passover, or of every typical and
symbolical meaning which can be discovered in that institution.
As we propose discussing the Mosaic legislation (including the
rites and ceremonies of worship), not according to its gradual
promulgation, extension, and completion, but in its systematic
form as an organized whole, the only features to which we shall
now refer, are those which are necessary for the elucidation of
this portion of the history of Israel.  See the elaborate treatise
of Bochart de agno Paschali (Hieroz. i. 628-703, Rosenmiiller's
edition.)
(1). The solemn festival which immediately preceded the
Exodus, is described as,'ls   n  r (xii. 11), mr,; nbr-nrr
(xii. 27), and mrmn 2m my  (xxxiv. 25). In chap. xii. 27 the
derivation of the word a) (Aramran RIn Up; LXX. rrdcaXa;
—: T: --




'finlx PASSOVF IR.                297
Vulg. Phase, transitus) is thus explained, Jehovah "passed
over (Fng) the houses of the children of Israel, when he smote
the Egyptians."  Ard  means to step or leap over anything.
This leads to the notion of sparing, exeimpting; for he who
steps over a thing, instead of treading upon it and crushing it,
spares and exempts it.  Hence, Onkelos has not hesitated to
substitute,nU (misericordia) for rI~.
The phrase        ", nD-rjjj necessarily leads us, to regard
the slaying of the Paschal lamb as a sacrificial act, and the
eating of it as a sacrificial meal.  And the fact, that the Paschal meal was considered (on scriptural authority, 1 Cor. v. 7)
to be a type of the Lord's supper, led the theologians of the
Catholic Church to seize with avidity upon the sacrificial dignity
of the Paschal lamb, as a confirmation of their unscriptural
theory of the repetition of the sacrifice of Christ whenever the
Lord's Supper is celebrated, since it was not merely the first meal,
but the first sacrifice, which was repeated at every subsequent
celebration of the passover.  Now, instead of contenting themselves with the reply, that the necessity for a repetition of the
Paschal sacrifice, whenever the passover was celebrated, arose
from the typical character, i.e., from the insufficiency of the Old
Testament sacrifices, and that a repetition of the sacrifice of Christ
is inadmissible on account of its absolute and perpetual validity
(Heb. vii. 27, ix. 28), the earlier Protestant theologians (Chemnitz, Gerhard, Calovius, Dorschnus, Varenins, Quenstiddt, Car2pzov,
and others), in order that they might take away every possible
foundation from the catholic theory, denied in toto the sacrificial
worth of the passover, and would only allow that it was a sacramenturm not a sacrZi'icimn.   There were, however, several of
the earlier theologians (e.g., Hacspan, Dannhauer, Bochart,
Vitringa, and others), who were impartial enough to admit the
opposite.  Among the more modern Protestant theologians,
Hofmann is the only one, so far as we are aware, who has
reproduced the denial of its sacrificial character (Weissagung
und Erfiillung i. 123, and Schriftbeweis ii. 1, p. 177 seq.).
Even 11. Baumgarten differs from  him in this respect (i. 1, p.
467).
So much must undoubtedly be admitted, that the name rnm:  is
not sufficient of itself to prove that the passover possessed a




298                   ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
sacrificial character; but this is incontrovertibly proved by the
apposition  m,':  a slaying for Jehovah cannot possibly be
anything but a sacrifice. This is quite as convincingly demonstrated, by what is related of the blood of the slaughtered lamb.
For, if the door-posts of the Israelites had to be sprinkled with
this blood, in order that the judicial wrath of God might not
smite them with the Egyptians; and if Jehovah spared their
houses solely because they were marked with the blood: the only
inference that can be drawn is that the blood was regarded as
possessing an expiatory virtue, by which their sins were covered
and atoned for, though otherwise they would have exposed them
to the wrath of God. It cannot be disputed, however, that the
blood of a sacrifice alone possessed this expiatory virtue.  Nor
can it be denied that, on subsequent occasions, when the passover
was celebrated as a commemorative festival and a renewal of
the deliverance of Israel, it possessed a sacrificial character. In
Num. ix. 7 the Paschal lamb is expressly called a sacrifice
(12~l); it was slain in a holy place (Deut. xvi. 5 sqq.); its blood
was sprinkled on the altar; and the fat was burnt upon the altar
(2 Chr. xxx. 16, 17, xxxv. 11, 12).  It is always referred to as
a sacrifice in Jewish tradition; Philo and Josephus call it Ovaga
and Ovaia, and the apostle Paul uses the verb NetLv with reference to it (1 Cor. v. 7).
The advocates of the opposite view appeal, with some show
of reason, to the fact that all the usual characteristics of a sacrifice, particularly the imposition of hands, the sprinkling of the
blood upon the altar, and the burning of certain portions of'
flesh at the altar, were omitted from the first passover, whilst
several directions were given, to which there is not the slightest
analogy in any of the true sacrifices.  But the latter circumstance merely proves, that the paschal sacrifice was not subordinate to the other kinds of sacrifice, but co-ordinate with
them, and formed an independent and peculiar class.  The
paschal sacrifice was just as much a distinct kind of Shelanmirm,
as the sacrifice offered on the great day of atonement was a
distinct kind of sin-offering.  The former, again, might be
sufficiently explained from  the fact that the Mosaic law of
sacrifice, on which the argument is founded, was not yet promulgated; but it must also be remembered that the condition of
the Israelites in Egypt did rot allow of the full and practical
s




TlE PASSOVER.                       299
development of the sacrificial character of the passover (vid. e.g
chap. viii. 26).  As soon, however, as the impediments were
removed, and the law of sacrifice was issued, the sacrifice of the
passover was assimilated to the general character common to the
rest of the sacrifices, so far, that is, as its distinctive and peculiar
character would allow.  Thus, for example, Moses commanded
that the Paschal lamnb should be slain at the sanctuary (Deut.
xvi. 2, 5, 6, cf. Ex. xxiii. 17).  Again, we discover from 2 Chr.
xxx. 16, xxxv. 11, that the blood of the Paschal lamb was
sprinkled upon the altar, and from 2 Chr. xxxv. 12, that certain
portions of the paschal sacrifice were placed (as -;,7) upon the
altar and burned.  In this it resembled other sacrifices (especially the Shelacnim, to which it was most nearly allied).l Since,
then, we find that in these two respects the passover was assimilated to the general idea of sacrifice, we may safely assume that
the third essential characteristic of that idea, viz. the imposition
of hands, was also included. The imposition of hands is treated
in the law of sacrifice as something so essential that it durst not
be omitted in the case of any sacrifice; but for that very reason
it was so much a matter of course, that it was necessarily presupposed even where it was not expressly prescribed. Thus, for
example, in the case of the not less peculiar sacrifice on the
great day of atonement, no mention is made of the imposition of
the hand, although it undoubtedly took place (vid. my Mos.
Opfer., 3Mitau 1842, p. 296).
(2). The Paschal lamb (in cases of necessity a goat might be
taken, ver. 5) was to be killed on the fourteenth of the month
Abib, the earing month, which was afterwards called Nisan,
but it was to be selected on the TENTH of the month.  We look
in vain to the greater number of commentators for any explanation of this singular appointment.  0. v. Gerlach says that this
1 We are compelled by the context to interpret the word ]i2 in 2 Chr.
xxxv. 12, not as denoting a burnt-offering, in the strict sense of the term,
but as a comprehensive word, referring to those portions of the paschal lambs
which were set apart to be burned; for, in the whole section, there is not,
and cannot be, any reference (vers. 10-19) to actual burnt-offerings (which
were never slain and offered at the same time as the Paschal lambs).  Cf.
Chr. B. Michaelis, Annott. in hagiogr. iii. 990: " Ver. 12, -7]l    ]']rpn:
Deinde amoverunt holocautstum, i.e. hoc loco: eas partes paschalium victimarum, quae adolebantur et igne comburebantur, ut erant adeps, eaedemquo
prosiciae, quae sacrorum salutariumn orant. Lev. iii. 9, 10, 11."




3C~0                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT'.
precept had reference to Egypt alone (??), where the comintg
judgments and the hurry of their departure left no time for a
later choice (!!). As if this selection was so tedious an affair,
and occupied so much time, that it would have been impossible
to find an opportunity during four whole days!  31. Banzmgarten contents himself with rejecting Hofnmann's interpretation as
inadmissible, without attempting to suggest a better.  Hofmann
(Weissagung uild Erfifilung i. 123) says, that the lamb had to
be selected as many days before it was slain, as there had been
jn'1h'T (generations) since Israel was brought to Egypt to grow
into a nation.  For four days the people were to be reminded of'
the approaching deliverance, by the sight of the lamb which had
been selected.  Baumyarten is of opinion, that this explanation
is overthrown by the fact that, according to the Hebrew mode of
reckoning, firom the 10th to the 14th, would not be iour days but
five. But this objection is founded upon a misapprehension.
It is certainly true that, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning, Christ is said to have lain in the grave for three days, but
this was an inaccurate expression, borrowed from the current
phraseology; it would have been more exact to say that he lay
in the grave upon thr~ee days, or that he rose on the third day.
If the selection took place on the tenth of Nisan, at about the
same time of the day as that on which it was slain, on the 14th,
the interval would be according to every mode of reckoning not
five days, but fou.r.  But if the time at which it was slain (" between evenings") is to be regarded as denoting the beginning
of the 15th, it mnight undoubtedly be said that it was killed on
the fifth day after the selection was made.  But even the latter
would square with Hofrjnann's explanation; in fact, on any other
supposition, the harmony between the symbol and the thing
signified would not be complete, for at the time of:o-"  Jixodus
Israel had actually entered upon the fifh -15- (cent-ryi i-) of its
sojourn in Egypt.  We feel no hesitation, therefore, in adopting
Hofmcann's interpretation; at the same time we cannot omit to
mention that Hofincann himself is not consistent, as this explanation of Ex. xii. 3 is clearly at variance with that which he
has given of Gen. xv. 9 (i. 98).  I must also retract the opinion
which I have previously expressed (at vol. i. ~ 563 5) with reference to Gen. xv. 9, and adopt Baunmgarten's exposition which I
have quoted thEere.




THE PASSOVER.                    301
(3). The expression  121.n.: go, i.e. between the two evenings, has been explained in various ways.  The Caraites and
Samaritans suppose it to refer to the period between the disappearance of the sun below the horizon and the time when it is
quite dark, i.e. from six o'clock till about half-past seven. Thus
the frst evening begins with the disappearance of the sun, the
second with the cessation of day-light.  Aben-Ezra gives the
same explanation.  The Pharisees in the days of Josephus
(bell. ijl,:- 6. 9. ~ 3) and the Talmhudists supposed the first
evening Mo be the afternoon from the time when the sun began
to go down, the second commencing when it actually set; Benhaarbayim, (between the evenings) would therefore be from
three o'clock till six.  Jarchi and Kimchi interpret the expression as referring to the hour immediately before sunset and that
immediately after, that is from five till seven.  Hitzig (Ostern
und Pfingsten, p. 16 seq.) arrives at the same conclusion.  He
regards the expression as denoting the indifferent boundary line
between the 14th and 15th Nisan; and as the slaying and preparation of the lamb cannot have been the work of a moment, he
supposes the boundary line to have been moved backwards or forwards, as occasion required.  Thus, in contradiction to his own
theory, he changes a point of time into a space of time.  Of
these different explanations the frst is the only admissible one,
as the following passages sufficiently prove: (1) Ex. xvi. 12, 13,
where "between the two evenings" and " in the evening" are
used as synonymous terms. (2) Deut. xvi. 4, where the lamb is
said to have been killed in the evenzig y; for the evening cannot
possibly begin before sunset, (" evening" is the general term; " between the evenings" the more particular definition); (3) Deut. xvi.
6, where the passover is ordered to be slain " in the evening as
soon as the sun goes down;" (4) Ex. xii. 6, 8, 10, from which we
learn that the lamb, which had been slain between the evenings,
was eaten the same night, and that none of it was left till the
morning, for here the time called ben-haarbayi? m is evidently
reckoned as a part of the night in the more general sense of the
word; and (5) the occurrence of a similar phrase in Arabic (cf.
Gesenius thes. p. 1065).-The custom  of the Pharisees is
apparently at variance with Ex. xii. 6 (compared with Lev.
xxiii. 5, "on the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the
Lord's passover "), for if the lamb was not slain till cafter sunset,




302                  ISRiAEL iN EGYPT.
strictly speaking it was killed on the 15th of Nasan, and not on
the 14th.  But all that we learn from a comparison of this verse
with Ex. xii. is that, agreeably to its natural character, the first
evening (i.e., the time of evening twilight), could be regarded as
either the termination of one day, or the commencement of
another. All that we have to determine, then, is simply the
point of view from which the historian was looking. If he
started from the 14th of Nisan, up to which day the lamb was to
be kept apart and preserved, and on which the immediate preparations for slaying it were to be made, ben-haarbayim would
pass for the termination of the 14th; but if he took his stand at the
15th of Nisan, the first day of the feast, the time of slaying the
lamb would then appear to him to be the commencement of the
15th. Thus there is no irreconcileable discrepancy in the fact, that
in Ex. xii. 18 we find a command. that unfermented bread should
be eaten for seven days, from the fourteenth day of the month
at even until the one and twentieth day of the month at even;
whereas in Lev. xxiii. 6, we read " from the fifteenth ye are to eat
unleavened bread for seven days."-See the thorough examination
of this question in J. v. CGziJupach's alttestl. Studien, Heidelberg
1852 p. 224 —237.
(4). The law of sacrifice had not yet been made known; the
common sanctuary was not yet erected; and the sacrifices of Israel
were an abomination to the Egyptians (chap. viii. 26).  Hence
we cannot expect to find the Israelites observing any of the
general laws of sacrifice, which were promulgated afterwards.
It was necessary that the sacrificial act should be performed in
private houses; the dwelling of each family served as " the tabernacle of the congregation," and the door-posts as the altar on
which the blood was sprinkled.  Jacob's one family had grown
into a number of families; and these families were still living
side by side, without being organised into the unity of a nation.
No single sacrifice could be offered for the community, because
Israel had no existence as a community yet; nor could the Israelites assemble to offer sacrifice at a common sanctuary, for no
such sanctuary had yet been provided.  If Israel was to be reconciled as a whole, that it might escape the coming judgment;
it was necessary that each of the separate family-groups, into
which it was divided, should offer for itself the atoning sacrifice, and protect itself from the wrath of the judge with the




THE PASSOVER1.                  303
atoning blood of the victim. When this atoning blood had
been smeared upon the lintel and door-posts, the whole house
was protected and everything in it; for the entrance represented
the entire house. There is something insipid in the remark that
" the houses of the Israelites had to be marked with the blood, in
order that the destroying angel might be able to distinguish
them from the houses of the Egyptians." At the same time it is
a perversion of the whole meaning, to say with Boc7hart and
Bdhr^ (ii. 634): Itaque hoc signum Deo non datur sed tHebraeis,
ut eo confirmati de liberatione certi sint. Bcaumcgarten, on the
other hand, correctly observes: "the sign is properly for him,
who sees it and judges accordingly; now the blood was seen by
Jehovah, as he himself said, and not by the Israelites who were
sitting in the houses. And it was just because the blood availed
as a sign for Jehovah, that it furnished Israel with a firm ground
of confidence."  Israel stood in need of reconciliation, because it
could not continue in its sin when judgment had begun. But
God was about to spare and deliver Israel, for the sake of its faith
and its future destiny, and therefore he imparted an expiatory
virtue to the blood of the sacrifice which was slain by the
Israelites.  They were to make this their own by faith, and, as
a proof that they had done so, to mark their houses with the
atoning blood.  To disregard this precept would have been to
despise and reject the mercy of God.
Baumnycgrtenz and v. Gerlach assign a most remarkable reason
for the fact that it was the lintel and not the threshold of the
door, which was to be marked with the blood, viz., that the destroying angel came from above and not from beneath. The true
reason most probably was, that a threshold is not a part of the
door, but is merely the basis on which it rests. A threshold is
not absolutely required in a representation of a house-door, but
the two posts and the lintel are indispensable.  BcAr is much
nearer the mark, when he refers (ii. 633) to Dent. vi. 9, where
the lintel of the door is mentioned as being just that part of the
house, which is most certain to attract the notice of any one
entering or passing by, and which was therefore the most suitable place fbr inscriptions.-Gerlach is of opinion that the Jewish
notion, that the marking of the door-post was only intended to
apply to the first passover in Egypt, is evidently at variance with
the words of the institution at vers. 24, 25. We cannot sub



304                   ISRIAEL IN EG YPT.
scribe to this opinion.  We cannot separate vers. 24 and 25
from their context in vers. 26, 27.  The latter show that the
command contained in vers. 24, 25 (to observe it as an ordinance for ever, and even to perpetuate the observance in the
promise, land) referred generally to the whole feast of the passover, and was not restricted to the marking of the door-posts,
as it would appear to have been if we merely connect it with ver.
23.  Again, from the hurried nature of the first passover it necessarily followed, that certain important modifications were required on the subsequent organization of the community and its
worship. But Moses had not yet received any commission to inform the people that such modifications would be necessary, nor
was there any reason why he should do so; much less was it requisite that they should be fully described.  In part they were left
over for further legislation; in part they followed as a matter of
course.  There were two reasons for marking the door-posts on
this occasion. (1) It was necessary that the blood, which was
intended as an expiation, should be applied; in order that its
expiatory virtue might take effect.  Now there was no altar at
command for the purpose; but on the other hand the house door
(and with it the house) was regarded in the light of an altar.
This reason ceased after the giving of the law, and the outer
court of the tabernacle was appointed as the place where the
passover should be slain and offered (Ex. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi.
2, 5, seq. cf. 2 Chr. xxx. 16, 17; xxxv. 11, 12).  (2) The door
posts had to be marked, because the destroyer was about to pass
through the land to slay.  But this reason had no force on any
subsequent occasion. Nor can it. be replied to this, that the
festival was afterwards observed as a feast of commemoration,
and that the door had still to be marked with the blood of the
Paschal lamb, to remined them of the way in which their houses
had formerly been passed over by the destroyer. For the passover was not merely a feast of commemoration, it was also designed to represent and renew that redemption and sanctification, whose historical foundation it served to recal.  Now, the
ceremony in question had no meaning after the first festival; for
it was only then, that the destroying angel was about to pass
through the land. The door was marked with the atoning blood,
in order that the destroyer might pass over.  It would therefore
have been a desecration of the sacred blood, if it had been




t-RE PASSOVEr.                   305
applied in the same manner, because the destroyer had once
passed by; this would have been to change a most significant
means of deliverance into a very insignificant sign of deliverance.
(5). The Paschal meal had the same design as every other
sacrificial meal, viz. to represent the fellowship with God, which
was to be established, as the result of the atoning sacrifice (vid.
my Mosaisches Opfer, p. 102 sqq.)  " For the death of the lamb
not only averted death, but originated a new life, and this new
life was in the eating of the flesh" (Baumgarten).  Hofmann,
who denies that there was anything sacrificial in the passover,
cannot of course admit that the Paschal meal was sacrificial.
The only end which, in his opinion, it was designed to answer,
was to give (physical) strength for the coming journey (p. 122,
123).   But is it possible that these arrangements, the symbolical character of which is emphatically shown in so many
important details, meant nothing more than: " eat as much as
you can to-night, that you may be able to sustain the fatigue of
your journey to-morrow morning"?  Can we imagine the lawgiver looking upon a meal, which was only intended to impart
physical strength, as of such great importance, that he made its
annual celebration the first and most solemn of all the national
festivals? It is true that Hofmnann does not use the word
" physical;" but we do not think that we have misrepresented
him, by giving such an interpretation to his words.  In fact,
this necessarily follows from his denial of the sacrificial meaning
of the passover. For if the physical strength imparted by this
meal was the symbol and source of a corresponding spiritual
strength, we do not see how it could become possessed of this
character, except as the result of the sacrificial idea attached to
the lamb, which was eaten at the meal.
A number of peculiar instructions were given with reference
to the preparation and enjoyment of the meal, the symbolical
character of which it is impossible to deny. (1). The lamb was
to be roasted over the fire, and not boiled (ver. 9).  The usual
explanation of this arrangement is, that such a mode of preparing
the food was most in accordance with the hurried nature of the
whole affair. Hofmann (i. 123) and Bdhr (ii. 636) both adopt
this explanation.  The former also adds: " the objection offered
by Spencer (ed. Pfaff. p. 307), that it would not have taken
VOL. II.                                    U




306                  ISitAEL IN EGYPT,
longer to boil the meat than to roast it, if the vessels had been
all made ready beforehand, contains its own refutation in the
inappropriate condition and supposition."  But why so inappropriate?  Had not the Israelites four whole days for making
these outward and unimportant preparations?  Undoubtedly
the Paschal meal had a compulsory and hurried character. But
it was only the meal, and not the preparations; for the latter
were spread over four days. If it was not inappropriate, that the
lamb itself should be selected and placed in readiness four days
before it was used, why should it be so inappropriate that the
vessels for boiling it (if boiling had been admissible on other
grounds), should be made ready a few hours or rather m;inutes
before (for this is all that would have been required)? But
must not the preparations for roasting on a spit, which was an
unusual process, have really occupied more time, than would have
been required to prepare the boiling apparatus which was in
constant use?  In whatever light we regard this explanation, it
appears to us to be thoroughly inadmissible.
A second injunction was that not a bone of the lamb should
be broken (ver. 46).  Of course this did not mean, that it was
not to be cut up for the purpose of eating, but for the purpose
of roasting.  The lamb was to be put upon the table whole.
The unity, of which the undivided lamb was a representation,
was communicated in a certain sense to those who ate of it.
Whilst eating of the one perfect lamb, as of a provision made
by God, eaten at the table of God, by intimate associates of God,
they were thereby linked together as one body, being all partakers of equal fellowship with God (coisult especially I Cor. x.
17). For this reason, as far as possible, the head, the thighs,
and the entrails (ver. 9), were all to be eaten. It was also
strictly commanded, that whatever was left should be burned the
next morning, and not laid by for another meal. For if any
portion had been eaten at another meal, this would have destroyed the idea of unity and completeness quite as much, as if
only half the lamb had been cooked.  " It would then have
fallen into the series of ordinary meals, and this would have
detracted from the holiness of that which was eaten" (Bauzmgarten). It was evidently on the same ground, that the further
direction was given, that no part of it should be carried across
the street from one house to another (ver. 46). It was an act




THE PASSOVER.                  307
of expediency, that whatever was left should be burned, but this
did not destroy the idea of unity.  By being committed to the
fire, it was safely preserved from any profane or common use,
and was given back, as it were, to God in the fire.
The third injunction lad reference to the other accompaniments, viz., bitter herbs and unleavened bread (ver. 8).  The
bitters (aD~-~), with which the lamb was to be eaten (LXX.: i~rl
7rt1KPi'&v, Vulgate, cuin lactucis agrestibus; Luther, mit bittern
Salsen), were undoulbtedly bitter herbs.  They referred to the
bitterness of the Egyptian oppression, of which it is said in chap.
i. 14, that "they (the Egyptians) made their lives bitter" (nouns).
There are other passages also, in which bitter food and drink are
figuratively employed to represent suffering and distress, Ps.
lxix. 21; Jer. viii. 14 (Baihr).  But firmly as we adhere to this
explanation, we cannot overlook the fact, that bitter accompaniments might also be regarded as a spice, by which a stronger
and more agreeable flavour was communicated to the food. The
sweet flesh of the roasted lamb was to be made more savoury by
the bitter vegetables, for their bitterness swould be lost in the
sweetness of the meat, and supply to the latter its appropriate
condiment.  And what the bitter spice was to the sweet meat,
the recollection of their oppression in Egypt was to be to their
deliverance from, bondage. But the recollection of their oppression was not all that was contemplated. As the sweet and
the bitter relieved each other, the one supplying what the other
wanted, so were the sufferings in Egypt and the deliverance from
bondage intimately and essentially connected together; for the
latter could never have taken place without the former, and it
was the consciousness of this which gave to the memorial its
sacred worth. The words of the apostle are applicable here,
"No chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but
grievous, nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit
of righteousness to them which are exercised thereby" (Heb.
xii. 11).
A similar meaning has also been attributed to the direction, to
eat only unleavened bread at the meal.  In support of this explanation, reference is made to Deut. xvi. 3, where the passover
bread is called bread of affliction ( Mr. Di-), and Wtiner (in the
second edition of his Real-lexicon ii. 231), is of opinion that " the
u2




i,,~( }8       ~ISUATL, IN EGCYPT.'
Israelite of a later age could not be more effectually reminded of
the oppression endured in Egypt, than by eating for a whole week
such plain and tasteless food." To this Bd'hr justly replies (ii.
630), "that if this had been the case, the whole seven days' festival
would have been a period of fasting and mortification, whereas it
was really a joyous festival, and not one of mourning and repentance.  Moreover the showbread and cakes, which, according to
their symbolical meaning, were intended as food for Jehovah, were
ordered to be unleavened.  Was Jehovah, then, to have nothing
but wretched, tasteless bread offered to him?"  At the same
time I am of ilofmnann's opinion (i. 124 seq.), that Bdihr's own
explanation is inadmissible,  He says that " it was called bread
of affliction, because it was bread, which called to mind their
sojourn in Egypt, and the suffering which they there endured;
though it did so, merely because it had been eaten on the occasion of their deliverance from that suffering."  But this reminds
one too much of the derivation " lucus a non lucendo."  I agree
with Hof]Snann, in thinking, that the explanation of the expression in Deuteronomy is to be found in the clause which immediately follows, " for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt
in haste (li1, i.e., ye fled from it in a hurried and anxious
manner)."  The departure from  Egypt assumed the form of a
hurried flight (     ali), and therefore was always remembered as
an >}; (a tribulation, or oppression).  As the Egyptians compelled the Israelites to rush out of Egypt in the greatest confusion, and allowed them  no time for withdrawing quietly, or
making the necessary preparations for their journey; they still
applied force to the Israelites, and Israel ate its last meal in
Egypt ~Y2, i.e., under the oppression and affliction of Egypt.
(In confirmation of this view, Hofmrzann very appropriately refers
to Is. lii. 12 -.p.F. j1n. [l).  Moreover we learn from Ex.
xii. 39 (34), that the reckless and irresistible impetuosity of the
Egyptians, and the consequent nature of their forced flight, compelled them, altogether irrespectively of the divine command
(ver. 15), and any symbolical meaning in the ordinance, to continue for several days the eating of unleavened bread; for every
particle of leaven had been removed from their houses on account
of the feast of the passover, and they were obliged to fly before
any fresh leaven could be prepared.




T'-rE PASSOVEwR.                309
The account, which is given in Ex. xii. 39 (34), has been
sometimes adduced as an evidence of discrepancy in the scriptural record; for, according to vers. 8 and 15 sqq., the use of
leaven had been altogether prohibited, not merely on the day of
the passover, but for seven days afterwards. But it was not the
writer's intention in ver. 39 to assign a reason for their eating
unleavened bread, either at the original festival, or on the subsequient commemoration of it.  The true explanation is this. The
first feast of the passover was confined to one day; and on this
day no leavened bread was to be eaten, for symbolical reasons.
The following days were not feast days; but, as they were spent
in travelling, they were days of hardship and toil.  The coinmemorative festival, which lasted seven days, was not intended to
celebrate the day of departure, and the first seven days of their
journey, but the day of their departure alone.  The reason why
seven days were spent in commemorating the historical events of
one day, is to be found in the solemn character of the festival,
which was observed in honour of this one day. Seven days,
neither more nor less, were required for a full realization of the
character of the festival, a perfect exhibition of the idea which
it embodied. But as the eating of the Paschal lamb was the one,
indivisible basis of the whole festival, and did not admit of repetition, whilst the festival itself was to last for seven days; this
could only be accomplished by continuing for seven days the
other essential element of the Paschal meal, viz., the eating of
unleavened bread.  This was the sole reason, why unleavened
bread was eaten for seven days, at the subsequent commemoration of the festival.  At the first festival leavened bread might
have been eaten on the second, third, and following days (for
then the festival was confined to one single day); but the
Israelites were compelled by external circumstances to continue
eating unleavened bread for some days afterwards. And this is all
that ver. 39 refers to.  Had the writer intended to say that it
was this fact, which gave rise to the future custom of eating unleavened bread for seven days, he would assuredly have referred
to it in a more pointed manner, instead of omitting to make any
reference to its lasting seven days.  But in reality he is only
speaking of the first day after the departure, and says that, on
that day, they ate unleavened bread, because the dough which
they had taken with them was not yet leavened.  By the second,




310                 ISRtAEL IN EGYP'T,
third, or fourth day it must have been leavened; and we may
confidently assume that the Israelites ate without hesitation what
they had in their possession, viz., bread made of the leavened
dough.
What, then, was the symbolical importance qf the unleavened
loaves.? They are called ni.n (Sept.;1vlka, yVuly. azymi panes).
Hofmnann has shown, in his Weissagung (i. 124), that this neither
means pure, nor yet sweet, but dry loaves.  The roots >Mr D and.dd convey the idea of the exclusion of moisture, hence of drying, parching. In unleavened bread the moisture of the dough
is driven out by the heat.  It is not really baked, but parched;
for the peculiar characteristic of baking is, that the leaven or
yeast produces fermentation in the dough, which is thereby expanded and lightened, and at the same time the moisture, which
is retained, re-acts against the parching and compressing force of
the external heat. It; then, we would deduce any symbolical
meaning from the name of the Mazzoth; it must be found in the
fact that the cMazzoth were loaves, in which there was nothing
but the pure meal, without any change in its nature or flavour,
without the admixture of any foreign substance (the water, for
example, which is driven out by the fire), and without the impartation of any foreign taste, or the least alteration by means of
fermentation. There is all the more reason for adopting this
interpretation, since it fully harmonizes with the course adopted
in the preparation of' the lanmb, where (by roasting instead of
boiling) every foreign substance was excluded, any change in its
nature entirely prevented, and the preparation entirely effected
by the pure and simple element of fire.
In the case of the M3izzoth everything depended upon the
absence of leaven, and in this there was a symbolical meaning.
Whether the taste of the bread was thereby improved or injured,
is not taken into consideration.  Leaven is dough in the course
of fermentation.  But fermentation is corruption, the destruction
of the natural condition, the breaking up of the natural connection between the component elements. Hence from a symbolical point of view all fermentation, being an alteration of the
form given to the material by the creative hand of God, is a
representation of that which is ungodly in the sphere of morals,
that is of moral corruption and depravity.  As the lamb, which
served to impart both physical and spiritual strength, and to




THE EXODUS.                    311
restore communion with God, was pure; the bread, which was
eaten with it, was not allowed to contain anything impure.
With reference to the command to eat the meal in travelling
costume (ver. 11), Baunmgar ten observes that, after the Israelites
had been redeemed from the death of Egypt by the blood of the
lamb, they derived new energy from eating the lamb that had
been slain, solely in order that they might immediately take
their departure from the land of destruction to the Mount of
God. The number of persons who formed one company at the
Paschal mcal is not stated.  It was most natural that each
household should form a separate party. But as it was desirable,
as far as possible, to take care that none of the lamb should be
left; ii was ordered that, where a family was small, it should unite
with another (ver. 4). At a later period the Jews looked upon
ten as the normal number of a single company.  The supplementary corrmmand (ver. 44 sqq.), that no foreign servant, or
associate, or hireling, should take part in the meal, and that no
foreigner, who might be dwelling among the Israelites, should
keep the passover with his family, unless they had been incorporated into the community of Israel by circumcision, had its
external ground in the fact, that a large number of the common
people of Egypt left their country with the Israelites (ver. 38,
see ~ 35. 7). But it is a very instructive fact, that just at this
time, when everything tended to show how Jehovah distinguished
between Israel and Egypt (chap. xi. 7), it was made a fundamental law that non-Israelites might enter without the least
difficulty into religious and national fellowship with the Israelites,
and thus participate in all the blessings of the house of Israel.
We have here a proof that, even when the distinction was most
marked between the heathen and the chosen people, the fundamental idea of the Old Testament history was never lost sight of,
that in Abraham's seed all the nations of the earth should be
blessed.
THE EXODUS FROM EGYPT.
~ 35 (Ex. xii. 29-xiii. 16).-While the children of Ilsrael were
eating the passover in travelling costume, the tentth ptlague (1)
fell upon the Egyptians.  At midnigbllt ihe dc&;troyinrg angel (2)




312                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
slew all the first-born of Egypt, both of men and cattle; and
there was not a house to be found, in which there was not one
dead.  The terror of God came upon all the Egyptians.  The
same night, Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron, gave them permission to depart (3), and intreated their intercession on his
behalf.  The people of Egypt also urged the Israelites to depart
as quickly as possible, for they said " we are all dead men." The
Israelites then did what Jehovah had previously commanded
them to do: they asked the Egyptians for articles of gold and
silver (trinkets and jewels) and for clothes (festal clothing). And
Jehovah caused his people to find favour in the eyes of the
Egyptians, so that they gave without hesitation whatever was
desired (4).  The instructions to repeat the Paschal meal every
year were coupled with a command, to sanctify all the first-born
of men and cattle to the Lord (5).  Thus they departed in
festal costume, as an army of Jehovah (6); for the Egyptians
themselves had clothed them with festal apparel and costly
ornaments.  The bones of Joseph were also taken by Moses,
according to the promise which had been made to him on oath
by the fathers of the people (~ 4), and for the fulfilment of
which the people as a body were responsible. A large number
of the Egyptians of the lower classes of society, who had endured
the same oppression as the Israelites, from the proud spirit of
caste which prevailed in Egypt, attached themselves to the
latter, and served henceforth as hewers of wood and drawers of
water (7).  Four hundred and thirty years had been spent in
Egypt by the descendants of Jacob (~ 14. 1).  There were
now among them  600,000 men capable of bearing arms (~ 14.
3). Raemses was the place from which the procession started;
Succoth their first resting-place (~ 37).
(1). Hengstenberg (Egypt and the Books of Moses p. 125)
pronounces the tenth pclague, viz., the death of all the first-born
both of nzen and cattle, to have been the result of a pestilence, a




THE EXODUS..313
thing of frequent occurrence in Egypt. But in this instance,
where the natural side of the event completely disappeared, he
goes so far, in his anxiety to introduce a natural element into the
-miracle, that we must decidedly decline accompanying him. With
greater moderation Hdvernickl says (p. 182): " The last plague
is the one, which brings us most decidedly into the sphere of the
purely miraculous." The word pestilence, however, is so indefinite and general a term, that it conveys but little information
after all.  If by pestilence we are to understand any disease
which carries men off in a sudden and unsparing way, we can
offer no objection to the application of the word to the tenth
plague; for if the hand of Jehovah smote a large number of the
Egyptians in one night with sudden death, the stroke itself must
undoubtedly have resembled a mortal disease.  But if the word
be used in a more restricted sense, as denoting a disease that
causes sudden death and overspreads whole districts by contagion, we protest with all our might against the designation.  It
was not by contagion, striking here and there like the electric
fluid without previous warning, that so many victims were struck
down by this plague, nor was it by any physical predisposition to
a disease produced by some mysterious pestilential vapour, that
those who fell were predestinated to die; but the hand of Jehovah,
or of the destroyer whom he sent, was the immediate cause, and
not only the number of the victims, but the particular individuals, were determined beforehand by a rule, which had not the
slightest connexion with the laws of contagion. We cannot but
be surprised, that Hengstenberg should ever have gone so far, as to
assert that " the expression' all the first-born' is not to be taken
literally, any more than the other statement that'there was no
house in which there was not one dead,' which could not be
strictly correct, since there were not first-born in every house."
In his opinion wve cannot infer from this that there were none of
the first-born left alive, or that none but first-bora were killed.
Again, with regard to the exemptio'n of the Israelites, he says
that natural analogies may be adduced, for at the present day the
Bedouins have very little predisposition to pestilence, and seldom
suffer in the same way from its devastations.  Even if we admit
that the expression " all the cattle " in chap. ix. 6 (like chap. ix.
25) is not to be taken too literally, it is very different with clhap.
xii. 29.  In the former case the reference is to the destruction




314                   ISRAEL IN EGYP',T.
of cattle by a general murrain, without any particular description of the individuals smitten, and therefore the historian
might naturally express himself in general terms.  But here,
where he is speaking of particular, well-defined individuals,
such a mode of expression would have been altogether out of
place.   The scriptural account says, " Jehovah smote cal the
first-born," and proceeds to give the greater emphasis to the
word " all" by adding: "From the first-born of Pharaoh that
sat on the throne, to the first-born of the maid-servant that was
behind the mill, and unto the first-born of the captive that was
in the dungeon" (xi. 5, xii. 29).  This was the last, decisive
plague. Whereas all the previous plagues had been so arranged,
that it was still possible for unbelief to resort to the subterfuge,
that they had been the result of nature and chance alone; this
last was of such a kind, that even hardness and unbelief could
not refuse to admit the interposition of the personal, living,
supreme, and Almighty God.  But the design of Jehovah would
have been entirely frustrated by such exceptions as Hengstenberg refers to.  There is no force in his assertion, that there cannot have been first-born in every house.  For if, here and there,
a couple may possibly have been found, where the husband was
not himself a first-born, witlzhout children, and living in a house
by themselves, the cases must have been extremely rare, in which
these three circumstances were all combined, and therefore the
writer cannot be blamed for saying " every house."  It was not
the design of the plague, that corpses should be found in every
house without exception; biut it was intended that all the firstborn without exception should be slain, and if anything be pressed
it must be this.  Moreover the reference is to the male filst-born
on the mother's side (as chap. xiii. 2 clearly shows, cf ZNo. 5
below), so that there would sometimes be several first-born in
the same family.
Again Hengstenberg is equally wrong, when he speaks of the
supposed pestilence as being connected with the Chamnsin (i.e.,
the three days' darkness).  He brings forward the evidence of
travellers to the effect that, " when the Chamisin lasts, pestilence prevails to a fearful extent, and those who are affected
die very quickly," and states immediately afterwards that "' for
this reason the Arabs, as soon as the Chamnsin ceases, congratulate each other on having survived."   But according to the.3




THE EXODUS.                    315
biblical account, the pestilence did not go before the " Chanmsin,"
or even accompany it; on the contrary, it did not occur for
several days, perhaps some weeks afterwards, and therefore long
after the Egyptians had congratulated each other on having
survived the dangerous period.
(2). The infliction of the tenth plague is sometimes ascribed
to Jehovah himself; at other times to a destroyer Dn_     sent
by Him and distinct from Him (chap. xii. 23).  There are some,
it is true, who regard Fn~W    as an abstract term, meaning
destruction; but ver. 13, which is adduced in support of this,
does not say: " the plague will not be among you for destruction," but " there shall be no plague among you for the destroyer"
(i.e., no plague to inflict, no occasion for bringing a plague).
So far as we have hitherto traced the operations of God in Israel
and on behalf of Israel, there is everything to lead to the conclusion, that the destroyer, who was sent by Jehovah, and in
whom and through whom Jehovah personally appeared and
worked, was no other than the angel, whom we have already met
with in the patriarchal history as the representative of Jehovah
(vol. i. ~ 50. 2); before whom Moses drew off his shoes and
covered his face, when he appeared to him in the burning bush
(chap. iii. 2, 5, 6); and who manifested himself to Moses in the
inn, when Jehovah appeared to slay him (chap. iv. 24). So
far as the judgment was one of wrath and brought destruction
upon the sinner, the judge was also a destroyer.  But as we
read in Ps. lxxviii. 49, of an army of angels of evil (nlrylktr,D~.~  ~sB,~), who were actively engaged in the Egyptian
plagues (for Cmy9, like.'1r, life, is an abstract noun meaning
evil, wickedness; and angels, that work evil, are not therefore
wicked angels), the question may be asked whether pirlntr
does not indicate a plurality of angels engaged in the plagues.
ir'ltnr, as Hofmann correctly observes (Schriftbeweis i. 310),
denotes an instrument of destruction, of which there may be
either one or many; and even in the latter case the many may
be conceived of and described as one, on account of the unity of
the principle which sets them in motion. Thus, for exanmple, in
1 Sam. xiii. 7, an entire division of the armly, which set out to
devastate the land, is called nnr1r,, and, on the other hand,
in 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, the angel of the Lord, which smote Jerusa



316                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
lenm with pestilence during the reign of David, is called'inn
nUnU;.     But when we observe, that in the passage quoted
from the Psalms, the work of the " angels of evil" is not restricted
to the slaying of the first-born, but applies to the whole of the
Egyptian plagues, and also that in the book of Exodus such
emphasis is laid upon the destroyer's passing over (i.e., from one
door to another); it must be acknowledged, that the passage in
the Psalms does not compel us to suppose that there was a
plurality of destroying angels employed in connexion with the
tenth plague, and that it is much.more natural to understand
the description, contained in the twelfth chapter of Exodus, as
relating to a single destroyer.
(3). Different answers have been given to the question, whether
Pharaoh gave the Israelites a conditional or an unconditional
permission to depart, that is, whether they left with or without
any obligation to return.  It appears to me that the permission.must be regarded as unconditional.  It is true that at first Moses
merely requested, that they might be allowed to go for a three
days' journey into the desert, and thus the prospect of return
was still left open (~ 20. 4); and even at the fourth plague he
still presented his request in this limited form, but he never did
so afterwards. It is in the nature of a war, however, that the
conqueror raises the conditions of peace with every victory
that he gains, whilst the vanquished are obliged to give up
all their claims.  The latter is just what Pharaoh did, as
the scriptural record expressly declares. And we may justly
assume that the former was the case with Moses, especially
as a regard to Pharaoh led him  to commence with a request of so limited a character, that it could not possibly have
sufficed even if it had been granted, and therefore in the event
of Pharaoh's compliance he would have been obliged to extend
it. How much easier, then, was it to do this, when Pharaoh was
obstinate and repeatedly broke his word! All the promises, that
Moses had previously made, were annulled by Pharaoh's continued breach of faith; and when at length, after the ninth
plague, the king turned the messenger of Jehovah out of doors,
threatening him with death if he should ever venture to appear
in his presence again, and Moses departed "with burning anger"
saying: "As thou hast said, I will see thy face again no more"




TUiE EXOI)US.                   317
(x. 29; xi. 8), all negotiations upon the former basis were for ever
broken off.  Henceforth Moses would never again request permission to go into the desert, but Pharaoh and his people would
beg and entreat of Israel to depart from Egypt, as an act of
kindness and mercy.  If, then, the departure of the Israelites
was regarded at the tine as an act of kindness to Egypt, we
may be sure that the Egyptians not only did not demand, but
did not even desire that the Israelites should return; for they
would surely fear, or rather foresee with certainty that, if they
did, the former evils would sooner or later be endured again.
Pharaoh's subsequent change of mind, which led him to pursue
the Israelites with an army, for the purpose of bringing them
back by force, is no proof to the contrary; for it was the result
of his own obduracy and the hardening of his heart by God,
and merely led to the full execution of judgment upon himself.
The fact that Pharaoh had not the remotest idea that the Israelites would return, but on the contrary regarded it as certain
that they would not, is clearly proved by his astonishment when
he heard that they had not gone straight into Asia, but were
still within the borders of Egypt on this side of the Red Sea
(~ 22. 5). "They have missed their way," he said, "the (Egyptian) desert hath shut them in."   The whole affair is so described, that we cannot possibly infer from Pharaoh's pursuit,
that he had merely given the Israelites permission to take a
three days' journey, and did not intend them to depart altogether.
For his reason for pursuing them was not that they had passed
the Egyptian frontier (in opposition to the supposed permission),
but that they were still within the limits of the Egyptian
territory.  They had not acted, therefore, in violation of Pharaoh's permission, but merely contrary to his expectation. If
the Israelites had taken the direct road to Canaan, or even if
they had gone by the regular route to Sinai round the head of
the gulf, the opposite view might possibly have been sustained.
But as they had not left the soil of Egypt, and therefore cannot
in any case have gone beyond the permission, which they are
supposed to have received, we cannot see why Pharaoh should
have hurried to enforce their return. On the contrary, as this was
the actual state of the case, it would have been more natural
for Pharaoh to conclude that the Israelites seriously intended
to return after they had offered their sacrifices; and if so, why




318                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
should he make use of force? Pharaoh's proceedings are inconmprehensible, on any other hypothesis than that the departure of
the Israelites was generally regarded as a formal, and actual
exodus.  Andl is not this CXPlressly stated in Pharaoh's words:
"why bhave we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving
us?" He says himself that he has let Israel go, that they should
serve him no longer. Have we not here, then, a proof of unconditional permission from Pharaoh's own mouth?  WVhat need
we any further witness?  The king fancied that the infatuated
resolution of Israel, which was to him so incomprehensible, was
a proof that the people had been forsaken by their God and
deprived of their reason; —therefore he altered his mind and
determined to pursue them.
In reply to this, however, we are referred to Pharaoh's words
in Ex. xii. 31, where Moses and Aaron repeat their demand for
the last time, and he answers: " Rise up and get you forth from
among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go,
serve Jehovah, as ye have said, also take your flocks and your
herds, as ye have said, and begone and bless me also." Pharaoh
is supposed to have expressly stated on this occasion, that he
merely based his permission to depart upon their prior demand,
and therefore restricted it to the limits of that demand. But
so long as the maxim holds good, that the doubtful must be
explained from the certain, and the obscure from that which is
clear, we must interpret Ex. xii. 31 from Ex. xiv. 5, 6, and not the
latter from the former. For no one will venture to assert, that Pharaoh's words in Ex. xii. 31 can only have been intended as a conditional permission to depart. He does not say a single word about
making their return a necessary condition, as Ex. viii.'28 and x. 10
would lead us to expect him to do. Moreover, on the supposition
that his permission was entirely unconditional, the words " serve
Jehovah, as ye have said," are perfectly intelligible, and by no
means unimportant: for if we take them in connexion with Ex.
viii. 25, 26, and x. 24 —26, we have good ground to suppose
that Pharaoh's meaning was, that he would place no obstacle
whatever in the way of their offering the intended sacrifice.
Moreover his reason for mentioning this sacrifice particularly
may be gathered from the expression which follows: " begone,
and bless me also!"  That is to say, he requested that the sacrifice might be made available for his own welfare and that of his




THE EXODUS.                     319
people, that Israel would show its gratitude by interceding for
him and entreating the mercy of Jehovah on his behalf. And
it must be admitted that the words in which the permission was
couched, "get you forth from among my people," look much
more like an unconditional than a conditional release.
(4). On the supposed " borrowing" and "purloining" of the
gold and silver vessels consult especially ltengstenberg's Genuineness of the Pentateuch (vol. ii. p. 417 —-432, English transl.).
The passages in which it is referred to are Ex. iii. 20 —22; xi.
1-3; xii. 35, 36. In the first passage, the spoiling of the
Egyptians is mentioned as a divine promise; in the second, as a
divine command; and in the third, as an act performed by the
Israelites.  All three passages have this in common, that the
Israelites asked (Qu. borrowed? iAgj) of the Egyptians vessels
(and clothes), and that God gave the people of Israel favour in
the eyes of the Egyptians. In the third the gift of the Egyptians
is described as a t'N    (Qu. lending or presenting?); in the
first and third the taking of the goods on the part of the Israelites
is spoken of as a spoiling (Qu. purloining? I.~); and, lastly,
in the first passage the design of the request is said to be " that
ye may not go out empty."
Most commentators explain the word  sMj,- as meaning to
lend. But if this be the meaning, as the Israelites were not going
to return to Egypt, and knew that they were not, their borrowing
must be regarded as an act of fraud, a theft in fact; and, what is
still worse, God himself appears as the instigator of the robbery.
Various attempts have been made to get rid of this difficulty.
In the first place, it has been said that God, the Creator
of all things, is the actual owner of all created objects, and
has an unconditional right to dispose of them as he will, and
that, accordingly, he may justly transfer them from one steward
to another.  This explanation is given by Abenezra, Augustine,
Luther, Calvin, Pfe/ffer, Calov, Buddeus, &c. Augustine finds
a more particular motive, however, for the divine decision in the
fact, that the Egyptians had perverted to ungodly purposes the
gold which had been entrusted to them by God, having applied
it to idolatrous worship, whereas the Israelites would use it for
building the tabernacle; and in this K. v. Raumer agrees with
him.  There is undoubtedly a certain amount of truth at the




320                  ISRAEL IN EGYr'T.
foundation of this explanation, and truth which is applicable to
the circumstances before us; but there is by no means a sufficient
amount of truth to remove the difficulty in question. If God in
the administration of his government of the world, by any movement whatever, makes one man the possessor of what has previously been in the hands of another, there is nothing in this to
perplex or surprise; and in such a case, the absolute right of God
to the possession and disposal of the property would be most
justly maintained.  But it is to us most offensive and repulsive,
for any one to attempt to persuade us, that an act of fraudulent
borrowing was the means of transfer approved and commanded
by God. We must, therefore, pronounce this attempted defence
unsatisfactory, except where it is accompanied, as it sometimes
is, by one of the arguments to be adduced presently as a solution
of the difficulty; and even then everything depends upon whether
the right selection is made.
Secondly, The purloining of the jewels has been represented
in the light of a reprisal, by which the Israelites, according
to the will and command of God, repaid themselves for the
long continued tributary service, which they had been unjustly
compelled to render.  This explanation is adopted by Philo,
Clemens of A lexandr-ia, Tertullian,.Irenaeus, Theodoret, Grotius, &c.  As we shall presently show, we admit that this
solution also contains a certain amount of truth; but it is
quite as far, as the former one, from being sufficient to remove the difficulty.  HIengstenberg, indeed, argues that there
was nothing of the nature of a reprisal in the matter, since the
Israelites did not stand in the same relation to the Egyptians as
one independent power to another, but in the relation of subjects
to the king of Egypt, and also because it was private property
which they took away, and not that of the Egyptian state.
With regard to the first, however, I cannot admit that there
was anything like the pure relation of a subject to a monarch in
the present instance. The Israelites had come to Egypt as a
free and independent people, and had merely placed themselves
under the protection of the king, without submitting to become
his subjects. As the king, however, bestowed certain lands upon
them, they certainly became his vassals, and on that relation
certain rights of supremacy were probably founded. But those
rights had respect to the lands, not to the individuals, and as




THE EXO;lS.                     321
soon as the Israelites restored the former to Pharaoh, he ceased
to have any claim upon them as his subjects, and had no right
to keep them in the land by force and against their will. And
when he attempted this, the Israelites, who had ceased to be
vassals by declaring their intention to depart, were fully justified
in meeting force by force, in defence of their right to withdraw.
With regard to the other objection, that the Israelites had not
rendered service to the Egyptians generally, but to the king and
the state, and therefore should only have indemnified themselves
from the property of the state, not from private property; the
difficulty is removed when we consider that the crime of oppressing Israel belonged to Egypt as a whole, and therefore the
duty of rendering compensation belonged to it also as a whole.
But the idea of a reprisal is entirely out of the question here;
for the Israelites asked for the treasures of the Egyptians, and
did not take them  by force, whilst the Egyptians gave therm
without any compulsion from without. And if their giving
were merely a lending, there would be still less room for speaking of reprisals.
Thirdly, a very peculiar escape from the difficulty has been suggested by Justi (fiber die den Aegyptern abgenommenen Gerdthe,
Frankfurt 1771), and in all that is essential he is followed by
Augusti (theol. BlMtt. i. 516 seq.).  They are both of them of
opinion, that the Israelites left their immoveable possessions in
exchange, or as security for what they borrowed; and hence the
failure to restore the latter cannot possibly be regarded in the
light of a theft. But we read nothing about security; moreover
this explanation is shown to be incorrect, by the words " they
purloined (stole) it from the Egyptians."
The following mode of defence touches more closely the actual
difficulty, which arises from the words lend and ppurloin.
It has been maintained,' fourthly, that the conduct of the
Israelites was undoubtedly opposed to the universal law of nature,
but that God, as the supreme lawgiver, has the right in particular
cases to suspend the law of nature, or dispense with it altogether.
We think it superfluous to enter into any further discussion of
the inadmissibility of this assertion.
Fifthly, it has been further supposed that the Israelites borrowed
According to Hase (Ilutterus redivivus, ed. 2 p. 58), by Escienrnayer, in
his Religionsphilosophie; but I cannot find the passage.
VOL. II.                                     IC




322 IsSRAEL IN EGYPrF.
the vessels with the intention of restoring them; but as God, the
supreme possessor, afterwards directed thefm to retain them as
their own, they were justified  in keeping them.  Pfeiffer, for
exa-mple, says: "posito mutuo potuit id ex post-facto, intercedente assignatione juris, transire in proprietatem possidentis."
Here, too, we consider a refutation uncalled for.
Scxthly, It has been said that the Egyptians lent the things, with
the expectation of receiving thiem back again, and the Israelites
borrowed with the intention of restoring'; but the Egyptian king,
by his breach of faith and his malicious attack, set the Israelites
free from every obligation to return, and rendered it impossible
that they should restore what they had borrowed. This is the
opinion expressed by J. D. Michacelis, HI. Ewald, Hofmann, &c.
But it is a sufficient reply to this, that the Israelites foresaw,
with all the assurance of faith in the promises of God, that they
would not return to Egypt (Ex. iii. 16 seq.). Nor is the flaw
mended by Heof/arnn's remark, that Moses undoubtedly knew
that the Lord had promised to bring the people to Canaan, and
therefore took Joseph's bones away, but that he did not know
how this would be accomplished.  That is to say, Moses knew
very well that the people would not return, and yet took away
the vessels, on the express or tacit condition that he should bring
them back!'Was not this fraud?
Seventhly, H. Ewvald (Geschichte ii. 52) regards the explanation just referred to, as evidently in accordance with the meaning
of the narrative. But in his opinion the scriptural narrative does
not give the Saga in its original form, but in a manner so
distorted and changed, that nothing less than E'wald's keen and
prophetic glance could possibly have discovered and restored it
to its original shape, which was as follows: " Israel took away
from the Egyptians the true reigion (?!!), took away from
them the proper sacrificial utensils, and therewith the true
sanctuary, and even the sacrifices themselves?  This must evidently (?!) be the meaning of the Saga.  In every such period,
when the fate and religion of two nations are about to be decided,
the first question is, which of the two contending nations will take
from the other what is really good (?!), and which will give it
up (?!); for in the course of the conflict something higher and
better will be sure to be evolved, and one of the two contending
parties will eventually suffer it to be taken by the other (?!).




THE EXODUS.                     323
In this instance Israel, as the conqueror, justly prided itself (?!!)
upon having taken the true sacrifice away from the Egyptians.
We find an analogy in the narrative of the robbery of' Laban's
household gods by Rachel, and the Grecian legend of the golden
fleece."  We certainly do not think that.Ewald's true explanation will share the fate of the true religion and the true sacrifices of Egypt.
Not much more successful is (eightly) a perfectly new explanation given by Schr6rincy (in the luth. Zeitschrift, 1850, p. 284
sqq.), who supposes that, according to the original historical form
of the Saga, the Israelites were victorious in a conflict with the
Egyptians, and carried off thepalladia of the kingdom.
Ninthly and lastly, we come to the view adopted by Hengstenberg. It had been previously held by Harenberg, Lilienthal, Rosenmiiller, Tholuck, Winer (Lex. Hebr.) and others, but none of
them have defended it so vigorously, or carried it out so
thoroughly as he. According to his explanation, the rendering
of the words in question by " lend" and " purloin" can be shown
to be false; and incontrovertible evidence, founded upon the
circumstances of the case and supported by philological considerations, can be adduced to prove that the former actually denotes a gift, forced from the Egyptians by moral power, through
the influence of God upon their hearts, and that the latter was
an act of spoliation or plunder, the explanation of which is
contained in the former.  As we believe that this is the only
correct explanation, we shall endeavour to sustain and, in some
respects, carry out more fully the arguments of LHengstenberg.
The first question is, how are the words Atuj and %Itqsn in
Ex. xii. 35, 36 to be understood? Do they mean postulavit and
dedit (to ask and to give), as Hengstenberg supposes, or multuum
petiit and mutuum  dedit (to borrow and to lend), as nearly every
other commentator renders them? In any case the two words
stand in such a relation to each other, that Is~tq    expresses
the granting of the request contained in  Ntq5. If the Septuagint
translation could always be depended upon, there would be no
difficulty at all.  The words are there rendered: jv/r'qo-av rrapa
rv'Atyv7rrioov...  Kce bXp]oav avrois.  In the Vulgate
we find petierunt... commodaverunt, and in Luther's
translation, "they asked... they lent."
Hengstenberg, however, not merely disputes the correctness
x2




324                ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
of the rendering " to lencd" in this connexion, but denies that it
ever has that meaning; at least he argues as if it was a priori
wrong to introduce such a notion here, because it is inappropriate on philological grounds.  But in this we differ from him.
For how did such a rendering find its way into the Septuaginb
and Vulgate if that be true?  Undoubtedly L R   (except in
one passage) always means simply to ask, request, entreat, without the additional idea associated with muztunm petiit.  Moreover there is only one other passage, in which the Hiphil of h tq
occurs, viz. 1 Sam. i. 28; andi there it cannot possibly mean to
lend, but to give unconditionally, to present: for Hannah does
not give the son whom she had asked of the Lord, merely as
a loan to the Lord.  She brings him as a gift to Him, who had
presented him to her; for she gives him up to the tabernacle,
with an express renunciation of all her rights and claims upon
him, by setting him apart as a Nazarite for life. But there is,
on the other hand, one passage in existence, viz. 2 Kings vi. 5,
where btA  has undoubtedly the meaning to borrow. When
the pupil of' the prophets, who drops his axe into the water,
mourns the more bitterly over the loss, because the axe was.ttj:; this can only mean that it belonged to another, and was
therefore borrowecd.  But if Lq'tq; may mean to borrow, even
when standing alone, there can be no doubt that LS9[qtV    may
also be used in the sense of " lending."
The real state of the case is as follows ~: qt) means primarily
and originally to beg, ask, desire; and ~N;   to grant the
request, to give what is asked. But there is nothing in the
words themselves, to show what is the nature of the request and
the gift, whether conditional or unconditional; whether what is
asked for, is required and given for a permanent possession, or
merely for temporary use. The context and the circumstances of
the case must determine, in everyinstance, whether the words have
any such subordinate idea at all, and if so, which of the two it
may be. If we ask, which is the more probable and usual, and
which therefore is to be tried first in our exposition, we must
certainly decide in favour of the former. For it will be granted,
we imagine, by every one, that the idea of requesting and giving
conditionally is farther removed from the radical signification of
the words, than that of giving and asking without conditions. And
this supposition is confirmed by the usage of the languages,  w:t




THE EXODUS.                     325
only occurs once in the sense of borrowing; and  wSpr, which
we only meet with in one other passage, has there the indisputable meaning, " to give, or present." Our proper course is
therefore plain, first of all to try whether this meaning will suit
the connexion; and if we find it inappropriate, i.e., if the context and the circumstances of the case compel us to give the
preference to the meaning " to lend," then and then only are we
bound, or even at liberty, to make use of the latter signification.
It appears to us, however, that both the circumstances and
the context are decidedly in favour of the first meaning.  The
most important point to be decided in connexion with the
enquiry is evidently this: did the Egyptians expect the Israelites to return, or were they led to expect it by any promise
on their part either tacit or expressed? If this question were
answered in the affirmative, we should not even then be compelled to conclude that the things were lent and not given; for
the Egyptians might expect the return of the Israelites, and yet
present to them valuable articles of plate and clothes.  But if the
state of the case was such that the Egyptians did not, and could
not expect them to return; it follows as a matter of course that
the only idea, entertained on either side, must have been that the
things were given, and not that they were lent. That this was
the actual state of the case, we have shown above in the third
note to this section.
Moreover, the statement which is repeated in all the three
passages, that the readiness of the Egyptians to give was the
result of the operation of God upon their hearts (" God gave the
people favour in the eyes of the Egyptians"), suggests the idea
of giving, much more than of lending.  And when it is said in
Ex. iii., " ask of the Egyptians and I will give you favour in their
sight, that you may not go out emipty;" it is very evident, in the
first place (especially if we compare the promise in Gen. xv. 14,
which is reiterated here), that what they asked for was to become their own property; secondly, that they were to obtain
possession of it, not through the impossibility of returning, but
through the influence of God upon the hearts of the Egyptians;
and thirdly, that the asking was not meant in the sense of purloining.
But there is still one difficulty left, and in the opinion of our
opponents, it is the most important of all, viz., the words?.y.y?




32(6                 ISRAEL iN IEGYP'T'.
ME,i-1 -ni (Angl., " and they spoiled the Egyptians:" Tr.), ini
chap. xii. 36. But it is just from this expression, that our explanation derives the greatest support; and to Hengstenberg belongs the
credit, of having been the first to point this out in an emphatic
manner.  In the Sep2tuagint the words are correctly rendered cKal
co'KvXevo-av TovS Alyv'rrtovq, and so also in the Vtlgate "et spoliaverunt Aegyptios;" but Luther's rendering is decidedly false,
" sie entwendeten es den Aegyptern" (they purloined it from the
Egyptians).  [.I: never means to purloin, to steal; it never
denotes the removal or appropriation of any thing craftily and
secretly, by fraud and treachery, but always means to plunder,
spoil, or take away by force.  Now this does not harmonize at
all with the idea of borrowing; for borrowing, with the intention
of not returning, is an act of treachery, not of force.  If we
enquire how Luether caine to lose sight of the true meaning; the
most probable conjecture is, that he was misled by the erroneous
idea, that ntW   meant to lend. He felt, no doubt, that spoiling did not harmonize with borrowing and lending, in fact that
one excluded the other; and instead of making use of the proper
explanation of tg2, to correct his false rendering of';r,  he
allowed himself to be misled by his regard for the Septutugint
and Vulgate, and therefore altered the true rendering of the
former, to suit the false or at least doubtful interpretation of the
latter.
But if the things were given, was it suitable to speak of this
as robbery and spoliation? At first sight it does appear somewhat strange, that we should answer in the affirmative.  But
on closer investigation it will not be thought so.  The author
intends to lay stress upon the fact, that constraint was put upon
the Egyptians; that they were plundered of their possessions in
consequence of the contest; and that Israel had marched away,
" laden, as it were, with the booty of their powerful foes, as a
sign of the victory, which they in their weakness had gained
through the omnipotence of God."  It was the fulfilment of the
promises contained in Gen. xv. 14, and Ex. iii. 19 sqq.: " Afterward shall they come out with great substance," and "I know
that the king of Egypt will not let you go except by a strong
hand, and I will stretch out my hand and smite Egypt with all
my wonders, and I will give this people favour in the sight of




THE EXODus.                    327
the Egyptians, and it shall come to pass that When ye go, ye shall
not go away empty."  " The author," says IRengstenberg, " represents the gifts of the Egyptians as spoil which God had
awarded to his army (xii. 4i1), and thus calls attention to the
fact, that the bestowment of these gifts, which outwardly appeared to be the eff-ect of the liberality of the Egyptians, proceeded from another giver; that the act of the Egyptians, which
was performed without external compulsion, was the result of a
divine constraining influence within, which they were utterly
unable to withstand."  Without this divine constraint, the
Egyptians would rather have done all the injury they could to
the despised and hated shepherds, from whom they had received
such harm. " At the same time the expression is chosen with
reference to the conduct of the Egyptians, for which they had
now to make some compensation to God and his people.  They
had plundered Israel (by the  tributary service which they
had unjustly compelled it to render); and now Israel carried
away the plunder of Egypt."  That which happened to Egypt
here, however, was a type of every similar conflict between Israel
and heathenism, for Egypt was the first-fruit and representative
of the whole heathen world in its relation to the kingdom of
God.  Hence it is said in Zech. xiv. 14, with evident reference
to this event, that " the wealth of all the heathen round about
shall be gathered together, gold and silver, and apparel, in great
abundance." in the present instance, therefore, on the occasion
of the first and fundamel-nntal conflict with heathenism  and victory over it, it would have been at variance with the divine rule
of propriety, if Jehovah had allowed his people to depart writhout compensation for the privations and injuries, to which they
had been unjustly exposed in Egypt.  It would have been but a
partial victory, and, therefore, (according to the primary intention of this portion of history), no victory at all, if Israel had not
thus obtained comlpiete satisfaction.
Thus, and thus only, can the passages quoted from the book
of Exodus be freed from every difficulty; thus only can the
terms of the announcement, and the demands of all the circumstances, be fully satisfied; thus only can the transaction
itself be brought into harmony with the whole of the miracles and events which occurred in Egypt; and only thus can
we expla;in the fact, that l he author regarded it as so important




328                   ISRAEL [:N EGYPT.
and significant, that he describes it three times with all the details, and in every form in which it could possibly be presented
(as a promise, a precept, and a fulfilment); and not only so, but
that it was also included in the promise made to Abraham 650
years before (Gen. xv. 14).  With this explanation, it appears to
us as the climax of all the signs and wonders, or rather of all the
events associated with the deliverance of Israel from the yoke of
the Egyptians. Every explanation, in which the notion of a loan
is retained, comnes into conflict with the idea of the holiness of
God; whilst all the elements of truth, which lie at the root of
the unsuccessful attempts referred to above, are not only retained,
but receive ample justice in this explanation of ours.
Before leaving this subject, there is one more question to which
we must direct our attention.  It has generally been overlooked
altogether, and where this has not been the case, it has been
incorrectly answered. I refer to the question, what kind of gifts
the Israelites asked for, what determined their choice, and to
what purpose they intended to apply them?
Ewald is of opinion, that the vessels and clothes, for which
they asked, were indisputably intended for the sacrificial festival, which the Israelites were about to celebrate, and for
which Moses had requested Pharaoh to let the people go.
They must, therefore, have been sacrificial utensils and priestly
clothes, which had already been set apart by the Egyptians for
the same religious object.  But how does this square with the
injunction contained in Ex. iii. 22, that " every woman shall
request of her neighbour (fem.), and of her that sojourneth in
her house," these clothes and other articles?  Does Ewald suppose, that all the Egyptian women, or at any rate all those, who
lived with or among the Israelites, were in possession of sacrificial articles and priestly clothes? Any one who is versed in
Egyptian antiquities, must know very well that the system of
caste was too strictly maintained in ancient Egypt, for such a,
thing to be credible. Justin, it is true, says of Moses, " sacra
Aegyptiorum furto abstulit" (hist. 36. 2. 13;) but he certainly
does not represent the Israelites as stealing the Sacra A egyptiorum from the wives of the Egyptian Fellahs.  His notion undoubtedly was, that Moses broke into the Egyptian temples at
the head of an Israelitish army and plundered them.  And if
any one imagines that Ju.stizn's account is more correct, than that




THE EXODUS.                     329
of the book of Exodus, we will not deprive him of his pleasure
by any untimely discussion, or refutation of his views.
Hofmann also supposes, that the articles of gold and silver
were sought (borrowed) by the Israelites, for the approaching
festival in the desert. But he imagines them to have been, not
bowls and other sacrificial vessels in use among the Egyptians,
as Ewald fancies, but articles of furniture and table utensils.
It can be easily proved, however, that this explanation is erroneous and inadmissible. For, like the other, it is opposed to the
command in Ex. iii. 22, that every woman should request of her
neighbour, and of her that sojourned in her house, the articles
referred to.  Can it for a moment be supposed that cooking
utensils, furniture, and table services of gold and silver were
possessed by all the Egyptians, even of the poorer and lower
orders (for it is these and not the rich and noble that we must
chiefly think of as dwelling in the midst of the Israelites and
lodging in their houses)?  But apart from this, the Egyptians
and Israelites were both of them too scrupulous and particular,
with regard to the cleanness and uncleanness of their vessels, for
the latter to use either sacred or profane vessels belonging to the
unholy Egyptians at their most holy festival; or, vice versa, for
the former to lend them to the Israelites for their abominations
(Ex. viii. 26).  Moreover, the supporters of this explanation
are at a loss to know how to dispose of the clothes, which are
referred to in just the same terms as the rest of the things.
However the issue proves that it is incorrect.  No doubt the
Israelites were altogether ignorant, at the time when they asked
for the golden vessels and the clothes, of the manner in which
the festival was to be celebrated and the sacrifices to be offered
in the desert (Ex. x. 26); and hence it is not impossible that
they may have thought, that every Israelitish woman (Ex. iii.)
and every Israelitish man (Ex. xi.) would require one or more
of these vessels of gold or silver.   But this is certainly not
very probable.  Besides, even if neither Moses nor the Israelites knew, what kind of festival was to be celebrated and what
would be required (Ex. x. 26), God certainly knew all this) and
it was He who commanded the Israelites to ask for the articles
of gold and silver.  Now, if we look at the result, viz., at the
manner in which the sacrificial festival was actually celebrated
in the desert (Ex. xxiv.), we find not the least hint, of their




330                  ISnAEL IN EGYPT.
having used the articles, which they had borrowed from  the
Egyptians; in fact it is evident, that only one sacrificial basin
was employed (xxiv. 6).  We must therefore conclude, that at
all events it could not have been the intention of God, that the
articles should be employed in their sacrificial worship. If, however, this was not the purpose for which God commanded the
Israelites to ask for the vessels of gold and silver, He must have
had some other object in view. And in our opinion, the scriptural
narrative states clearly enough what His purpose was.  But we
must postpone the discussion of it to a later period.
First of all, we must endeavour to ascertain clearly, what we
are to understand by the ln'.2.  -,i i ]n: id   %   in this
passage.  There is no difficulty with regard to the particular
words.,d plur. M27, derived from Fi, means, according to
Gesenius (thesaurus): quidquid factum, confectum, paratum.
It is a " vocabulum  late patens" to which it would be difficult
to find a parallel; for it is used in the Old Testament, with
reference to articles of every possible lind.  House-furniture,
tools, sacrificial utensils, vessels of all kinds and for all purposes, armour, clothes, ornaments, jewels, and other things, are
all called by this name.  But when the Cp2n are said to have
been of gold and silver; of course the range, which is covered by
the word, is considerably limited. It must then be understood
as referring to such articles only, as were generally or frequently
made of the precious metals.  Now as a rule the articles of gold
and silver would be merely ornaments (rings, bracelets, chains,
&c.), things used in the temple (sacrificial vessels, &c.), and
certain articles of furniture or table-service to be found in the
houses of the rich and noble.   As the precious metals were
most frequently employed in the manufacture of the articles
first-named, it is most natural to suppose that ~2q ]D  >n
Ac were jewels and ornaments; there being nothing in the
context or the words themselves, on which to. found a more
minute description.  Hence, starting from this abstract standpoint, we have good reason to suppose that the primary reference
is not to articles of furniture or table-service, but to ornaments,
trinkets, and jewels.  In this sense the expression occurs in Gen.
xxiv. 53 without further details: "And Eliezer produced I1~  >i:
r2~2.3I 21 n, "and gave them to Rebekah." But although we




T'HE EXODUS.                    331
have no particular description, can we reasonably suppose the presents to have consisted of anything but trinkets and ornamnental
articles of female attire?:.T  i:n is used in the same sense
in Ex. xxxv. 22, clasps and ear-(nose)-rings, finger- (signet)rings, and necklaces being mentioned by way of example; and
also in Num. xxxi. 50, where, in addition to the ornaments just
named, foot-chains and bracelets are specified.
These passages show very clearly, that in common parlance
the phrase " articles of gold and silver" was generally understood as referring to ornaments.  And if we look more closely
at the verses before us, we shall soon arrive at the conviction,
that nothing else can be intended there.  The very fact, that the
articles of gold and silver are mentioned in connexion with
clothes, leads to the conclusion that the two are to be placed in
the same category; that is to; say, that they were both of them
ornamental, since the clothes were evidently festal dresses. This
conclusion is still more decidedly forced upon us, when we consider that in Ex. iii. none but women are mentioned either as
givers or receivers.  For it is evident that only such things are
referred to, as are generally to be found in the possession of
women, and such as women care most about.  We have not
to think, then, of either furniture or table service, but of ornaments alone.  And thus the difficulty, to which Hofmnann's explanation was exposed, is entirely removed. We certainly cannot
imagine that every Egyptian family was in possession of gold
and silver plate, much less of sacrificial basons, dishes, &c., of
gold and silver; but without wandering beyond the range of
probability, we may assume, that an Egyptian woman, though
otherwise poor, might possess a ring, bracelet, clasp, or some
other ornament of gold or silver.
We find, indeed, in Ex. xi., men as well as women mentioned
as givers and receivers; but no one, we trust, wvill think that
this is at variance with our explanation. For clothes are spoken
of, as well as gold and silver;I?2; and they were certainly
required by men, as much as by women.  Moreover the men
sometimes wore either gold or silver ornaments.  Judah, for
example, had a signet ring (Gen. xxxviii. 18), and Joseph a
ring and gold chain (Gen. xli. 42).
A further proof that this is the only correct explanation, is to be
found in the words ni     b:n.:~ L.: Y ~'  (Ex. iii. 22).




332                   ISIAEL IN EGYPT.
Luther follows the Septuagint and Vulgate, and renders these
words, "ye shall lay them upon your sons and daughters,"  i.e.,
that they may carry them.  This is a mistake, which necessarily arose from the false interpretation of t:,42D (Gefc'isse,
Oa-cvr7, vasa), and which a correct interpretation at once removes.
Even on the supposition that the t2~t; were vessels (basons,
kettles, dishes, &c.), there would be something startling in such
a rendering.  Had the Israelites, we might ask, whose chief
pursuit was the rearing of cattle, no asses and other beasts to
carry their baggage? Was it necessary that their sons and
daughters should supply the place of beasts and burden? If we
refer to Ex. xii. 38, we shall find that the Israelites went out
with a very large quantity of cattle of every kind. Moreover
the verb  -i with the preposition.yV can only mean to pput on,
when used of clothing, armour, jeweIlery, &c. (cf. Gen. xxxvii.
34, xli. 42; Lev. viii. 8, seq.; ERuth iii. 2; Ezek xvi. 14, and
many other passages), and this must be the meaning here.
But we have still one more way open, of fully satisfying ourselves as to the meaning of the words "articles of gold and
articles of silver," in the passage under review. As every woman
was to ask, and receive from her female neighbour, and every
man from his neighbour also; there must have been a great
abundance of the articles referred to, in the possession of the
Israelites.  Let us see now, whether we do not find some further
reference to them in the course of the history.  First of all we
meet with them in Ex. xxxii., where the men and women, sons
and daughters of Israel, take their golden ear-rings out of their
ears, that Aaron may make them into Elohim to go before them.
Again, although the quantity of golden ornaments, required
to make the golden calf, must have been far from inconsiderable,
and this calf was subsequently destroyed (Ex. xxxii. 20); we
read shortly afterwards (Ex. xxxv. 21, seq.), that the whole
community, both men and women, brought " clasps and ear-rings
(nose-rings?), signet rings, necklaces, and all sorts of trinkets
of gold," as a free-will offering towards the erection and furnishing of the tabernacle. Let any one think for a moment
what a mass of gold must have been used in connexion with the
tabernacle, when the beams were all plated with gold, and the
articles of furniture were either made of solid gold or at least
covered with it, and lie will lbe oblifged to admit not only that
2




THE EXODUS.                     333
the quantity of gold in the possession of the Israelites was extraordinary, but that if we were not acquainted with the circumstance
narrated in Ex. xii. 35, 36, it would be incredible and inconceivable.
We shall, perhaps, be reminded, however, that according to
Num. iv., there were gold and silver dishes, bowls, cups, cans,
lamps, snuffers, extinguishers, and oil vessels in the tabernacle,
and told that these were probably the " articles" which the Israelites had received from the Egyptians (cf. v. Rcaumer, Der Zug
der Israel. p. 3. 4. Anm.).  But this was evidently not the case,
for we learn from Ex. xxv. 29, 38, that these dishes, bowls,
cans, cups, snuffers, and extinguishers were made in the desert;
and in ver. 3 sqq. we read, that they were made from the freewill offerings of ornaments and jewellery, that were brought to
Moses by both men and women.  We may, perhaps, be also
referred to Num. vii., where it is said that every one of the
twelve princes of Israel brought as his offering, at the dedication
of the altar, a silver dish weighing a hundred and thirty shekels,
a silver bowl of seventy shekels, and a golden spoon of ten shekels, in which his meat offering was placed; and these again
will probably be pointed out as Egyptian vessels. But let it be
observed that every woman, and every man, requested and received the articles of gold and silver; whilst here it was only the
twelve princes of Israel, who brought such offerings as these.
Moreover, they were not brought till the tabernacle was finished;
and therefore the twelve dishes, and bowls, and spoons, had
most probably been made in the desert for that purpose, as well
as the things already named in Ex. xxv. 29, 38, and Num. iv.
7, 9.  The gifts of the Egyptians may possibly have been employed; but if any objection be felt to this, it must be borne in
mind, that the offerings were made by the princes of Israel, and
as they were the richest and most eminent among the people,
they may very well have possessed both gold and silver, and, for
aught I know, silver dishes and bowls, as well as golden spoons,
among their private property.  Still, as the dishes, bowls, and
spoons, offered by the twelve princes, were all of exactly the
same weight, we are forced to the conclusion, that they had been
prepared expressly for the purpose.
The character and drift of the whole narrative are brought
out more clearly by this explanation; and on the other hand it




334                   ISIRAEL IN EGYPT.
serves to confirm the opinion, that the articles were not obtained
by borrowing and purloining, but were spoils which came to the
Israelites in the shape of presents, though they were forced from
the Egyptians by moral constraint.
After the severe oppression, under which Israel had groaned
so long, the resources of a large portion of the nation must
necessarily have been consiclerably reduced, through the loss of
the property which they once possessed. Under such circumstances, unless some provision had been made, the departure of
the Israelites would have been upon the whole but a very miserable one; and the last impression left by the people of God, on
their exodus from Egypt, could only have been that of a wretched
and contemptible horde of beggars and of slaves. This would
undoubtedly have been opposed to the divine rule of propriety;
for the reproach of the people was the reproach of Jehovah, just
as in other cases the glory of the people was Jehovah's glory.
It was not to be with great difficulty, and with hardly a sound
slin, that the Israelites were to depart; but as a victorious
and triumphant people, laden with the treasures of Egypt, in
festal attire, and adorned with jewels and costly ornaments,
and with necklaces and bracelets of gold. They were going to
the celebration of a festival, the greatest and most glorious that
ever occurred in their history; such a festival demanded festal
attire, and this was to be furnished by their bitter and obdurate
foes, without (and this was the climax of their triumph) the
least external compulsion, and yet without resistance or refusal,
on the simple request of the Israelites alone.  To such an
extent had the pride and intolerance of the Egyptians been
broken; so completely were the tables turned, that Egypt now
entreated as a favour the very departure, which it had hitherto
so obstinately opposed, and it was no longer the Egyptians but
the Israelites who prescribed the conditions of their departure,
whilst the former assented at once to every condition, however
humiliating it might be.
(5). The Old Testament divides the First-born into two
classes, the first-born of the father, and the first-born of the mother. The former alone possessed the civil rights of primogeniture, namely, the headship in the family, and the double inheritance, which secured to them the title of primogeniti haereditatis
(cof Deut. xxi. 15 —17). The latter, who were called, in distinction




THE EXODUS.                      335
from the others, "every first-born that openeth every womb," had
no civil pre-eminence; unless they were also the first-born of the
father.  In the case before us, the first-born of the mothers are
intended; and as they were to be sanctified to Jehovah, they were
designated as primogeniti sanctitudinis. (cf. Selden, de success. in bona defunctt. c. 7. p. 26 sqq. and Iken diss. ii. p.
37).-The question arises here, what are we to understand
by the sanctification of the first-born?  That they were not to
be set apart to the priesthood is proved most conclusively by
Ex. xiii. 2, 13, where the first-born of men are ordered to be
sanctified, in exactly the same sense as the first-born of beasts.
It was not as sacerdotes, but as sacrificia to the Lord, that the
first-born were to be set apart.  " Sanctify unto me all the firstborn both of man and of beast, for they are mine," are the terms
of the command in ver. 2 (cf Vitrinya, observv. ss. ii. 2, p. 272
sqq.).  When Jehovah passed through the land and smote all
the first-born of the Egyptians, he had passed over all the houses
of the Israelites that were marked with the atoning blood of the
Paschal lamb, and spared the first-born in them; but notwithstanding this, he had the same claim  to the first-born of the
Israelites, as to those of the Egyptians.  This claim of Jehovah
to the possession of all the first-born was founded upon the fact,
that He was the Lord and Creator of all things, and that as
every created object owed its life to Him, to Him should its life
be entirely devoted.  The earliest birth is here regarded as the
representative of all the births; so that the dedication of the
whole family was involved in that of the first-born. The difference between the first-born of Israel and the first-born of Egypt
was this: the Egyptians refused to render to Jehovah that which
was due, and continued most obstinately to resist his will; Israel,
on the other hand, did not draw back from  the dedication required, and covered their previous omissions by the atoning
blood of the sacrificial lamb.  Now the law of the kingdom of
God is, that every thing which will not voluntarily consecrate,
itself to the Lord, for the purpose of receiving life and blessedness through this self-dedication, is compulsorily dedicated in
such a manner as to receive judgment and condemnation.  The
slaughter of the first-born of the Egyptians is therefore to be
regarded as of the nature of a ban (D-n),  an involuntary,
compulsory, dedication.  But Israel's self-dedication to Jehovah




336                   ISRAEL IN EGYPT''.
had hitherto been insufficient, and hence the necessity for the
expiatory sacrifice to cover the defects. The necessary complemnent of reconciliation is sanctification.  By virtue of the atoning
Paschal blood the first-born of Israel had been spared; but if
they were to continue to be thus spared, the sanctification of the
first-born must follow. And as the first-born of Egypt represented the entire nation, and in their fate the whole people were
subjected to a compulsory dedication; so was the voluntary
dedication of the whole nation of Israel set forth in the sanctification of the Israelitish first-born.  It is true that the sparing
of the first-born, like the redemption from Egypt, did not occur
more than once in history; but future generations reaped the
benefit of both events; and therefore in the particular generation
which was spared and delivered, every succeeding generation was
spared and redeemed at the same time (and it was for the
purpose of keeping this in mind that the annual commemoration
of the passover was enjoined). Hence it was not sufficient that
the first-born of that first generation should be consecrated to
the Lord, in order that the protection and deliverance afforded
should be subjectively completed; but it was required that the
first-born of every succeeding generation should be also sanctified to the Lord, as having been also spared and redeemed.
Therefore the command was issued, that this first sanctification
of the first-born should be repeated in the case of all the firstborn in every age.
The words "for they are mine," (chap. xiii. 2) show, in the
most general terms, in what the consecration of the first-born
consisted.  The first-born was the Lord's; it was not sz'i juris,
but the property of Jehovah, Jehovah's mnanc2dium.  Knowing
then, as we do, from the next stages in the development of their
history, that Jehovah had determined to fix his abode in the
midst of the Israelites, and that his dwelling-place was to be the
sanctuary of Israel, the tabernacle of assembly, where they were
to meet with their God and serve him; we naturally expect that
the consecration of the first-born, that is, their dedication to
Jehovah, should take place either in or at this sanctuary, and
this expectation was fully realized in the subsequent course of
their history (vid. Vol. iii. ~ 20. 3). But the sanctuary was not
yet erected; therefore, the sanctification required here cannot
have been anything more than a provisional separation for that




THE EXODUS.                     337
purpose, not the actual realization of it. But Israel was already
to be made to understand, that after that solemn night of protection and deliverance, the first-born of its families and the
first-born of its cattle were no longer its own, but belonged to
God. It was no longer at liberty to dispose of them according
to its own pleasure; but must wait submissively, till God in his
own time should determine what they were to do. So much,
however, was already made known (chap. xiii. 13), that only
clean animals, i.e., such as were fit for sacrifice, were to be actually
and irredeemably set apart as sacrificers to the Lord; whilst all
the rest of the cattle were either to be slain, or redeemed by a
clean beast, and the first-born children were also to be redeemed.
But it was not declared till a later period, how this was to be
done (Numn. iii. 8; viii. 17; xviii. 14-18).  At the same time,
they were already made perfectly conscious of the meaning of
the whole transaction (vers. 14, 15): " When thy son asketh thee
in time to come, saying, what is this? thou shalt say unto him:
By strength of hand Jehovah brought us out of Egypt, from the
house of bondage, and it came to pass, when Pharaoh would
hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the first-born of Egypt,
therefore I sacrifice to Jehovah all that openeth
the matrix, being males; but all the first-born of my children I
redeem."
An expression occurs in Ex. xiii. 1 6, with reference to the sanctification of the first-born, which is similar to that which has already been used in ver. 9 respecting the yearly celebration of the
passover: " It shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for a
memorial-band (lh- gI.; ver. 16, for a frontlet, A i5c. )  between thine eyes. The pharisaic custom of later times was founded
upon these passages; just as the practice of wearing ] i /s) or
OvXaxcTrpta (Matt. xxiii. 5), i.e., strips of parchment with passages of Scripture written upon them, which were tied to the forehead and the hand at the time of prayer, was based upon Deut.
vi. 8 and xi. 18; whilst others interpret the passages as symbolical
only. That the latter is the only admissible explanation of the two
passages in the Book of Exodus, must be apparent to every one;
but whether the same may be said of the passages in Deuteronomy, is a question that we must reserve for a later occasion.
(6). According to Ex. xiii. 18 the children of Israel departed
VOL. II.                                     y




338                   ISRAEL IN EGYP'T,.
from  Egypt  ~.Un^.    The Septuagint rendering is v7rvrp
8 Ey evca avepr/o-av.  Clericus explains it in the same manner, with special reference to Gen. xv. 16, and Ex. vi. 16
sqq. (Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses).  Fuller adheres
firmly to the derivation of the word from WtEST five (Miscell. ss.
5. 2). He renders it by vrGEATae',f, and supposes it to mean
that they were drawn up in five columns.  But neither of these
renderings corresponds to the sense, in which the word is used in
other places (Josh. i. 14; vi. 12; Judg. vii. 11).  In Num. xxii.
30, 32, and Deut. iii. 18, the men who are called t:2~Vrr7 in
Josh. i. 14, and vi. 12, are described as On.'~Pn7 (-= accincti,
expediti ad iter s. ad proelium).  The Vulgate translates it
armati; Aquila, CvovrrXwto'tvot; Symmachus, KaOc)mkTto'/avoI.
A more suitable rendering of the passages cited would be
" equipped for battle, in battle array," which certainly includes
the notion of being armed. The etymology is doubtful. Gesenius
refers to the cognate roots Br - acer fJuit, nr,   = violenter
egit, oppressit, and to the Arabic use   ~ acer, strenuus fuit in
proelio.  It has been objected to our explanation, that the Israelites went away unarmed.   But this is nowhere stated;
and the panic, which seized them afterwards (chap. xiv. 10 sqq.),
does not prove that they were not armed.  On the other hand,
we read shortly afterwards of their fighting a regular battle
at Rephidim with the Amalekites (xvii. 10 sqq.).  There could
have been no reason whatever for dividing the people into five
companies.  The Septiuagint rendering has still less to commend it; were it only because there is no ground for the assumption, that Moses was the fifth in order of descent from Jacob (vol.
i. ~ 6. 1). But the rendering " equipped for battle" or " in battle
array" furnishes a good, appropriate, and very significant meaning.  This was a necessary part of the triumphant and jubilant
attitude, in which Israel was to depart from Egypt.
(7). The Egyptians, who attached themselves to the Israelites
on their departure, are called  -.y. (from  nl-y to mix) in chap.
xii. 38, and in Num. xi. 4 qg:    (from  Add to collect).
Luther renders both words Pobelvolk (a mob); the Septuagint,
E7rlICUTOS; the Vulgate, vulgus promniscuum.   The Hebrew
expressions describe them as a people that had flocked together




THE EXODUS.                    339
(the formation and meaning of the words correspond to the
German 1Mischmasc]h), and lead to the conclusion that they
formed the lowest stratum of Egyptian society, like the Pariahs
in India, and did not belong to any of the recognised castes (cf.
~ 45. 4).  Even among the Israelites they occupied a very
subordinate position; for there can be no doubt that they were
the hewers of wood and drawers of water mentioned in Deut.
xxix. 10, 11. At the same time we perceive from this passage,
that in spite of their subordinate position, and their performance
of the lowest kinds of service, they were regarded as an integral
part of the Israelitish community.
PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA, AND DESTRUCTION OF PHARAOH.
~ 36. (Ex. xiii. 17 —xv. 21; Num. xxxiii. 3 —8).-The
nearest route to Canaan, the ultimate destination of the children
of Israel (chap. iii. 17), would have been in a north-easterly
direction, along the coast of the Mediterranean; and by this route
their pilgrimage would not have lasted more than a very few
days. But Jehovah had his own good reasons (1) for not leading them straight to Canaan, but causing them to take a circuitous route across the desert of Sinai (2). The regular road
from Egypt to Sinai goes round the northern point of the Heroopolitan Gulf (the Red Sea), and then follows a south-easterly
direction along its eastern shore. In this direction the Israelitish
procession started, under the guidance of Moses. The point from
which they set out was Raemses, the chief city of the land of
Goshen. The main body, which started from this city, was no
doubt joined on the road by detachments from the more distant
provinces. Their first place of encampment was Succoth, the
second Etharnm, " at the end of the desert." But instead of going
completely round the northern extremity of the Red Sea, so as to
get as quickly as possible beyond the borders of the Egyptian
territory, and out of the reach of Egyptian weapons; as soon as
they reached this point, they received orders from Jehovah to
Y 2




340                 iSRAEL IN EGYPT.
turn round and continue their march upon the western side of
the sea. Thus they still remained on Egyptian soil, and took a
route, which apparently exposed them to inevitable destruction,
if Pharaoh should make up his mind to pursue them. For they
were completely shut in by the sea on the one hand, and by high
mountains and narrow defiles on the other, without any method
of escape which human sagacity could possibly discover. In
such a position no prudence, or skill, or power, that any human
leader, even though he were a Moses, might possess, could be of
the least avail. But it was the will of God; and God never demands more than he gives. When He required that Israel
should take this route, He had also provided the means of escape.
In his own person he undertook the direction of their march,
and that in an outward and visible form, and by a phenomenon
of so magnificent a character, that every individual in the immense procession could see it, and that' all might be convinced
that they were under the guidance of God. Jehovah went before them, by day in a pillar of cloud, that he might lead them
by the right way, and by night in a pillar offire, to enlighten
the darkness of the night. This pillar of cloud never left the
people during the day, nor the pillar of fire during the night (3).
Tidings were quickly brought to Pharaoh from Etham of the
unexpected, and, as it seemed, inconceivably infatuated change
which the Israelites had made in their course. And Pharaoh
said, " they have lost their way in the land; the desert has shut
them in." The old pride of Egypt, which the last plague had
broken down, lifted up its head once more. " Why have we
done this, they said, to let Israel go from serving us?" Pharaoh
collected an army with the greatest possible speed, and pursued
thb Israelites, overtaking them when they were encamped within
sight of the sea, between Pihahiroth, Migdol, and Baalzephon.
Shut in between mountains, the sea, and Pharaoh's cavalry, and
neither prepared nor able to fight; enveloped, moreover, in the




PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA.           341
darkness of night, and without the least human prospect of victory, deliverance, or flight; the people now began to despair.
"Were there no graves in Egypt," they cried out to Moses,' that thou shouldest lead us away to die in the wilderness?"
Nor did Moses see any human way of escape. But he expected
deliverance from Jehovah, and from Jehovah it came. " Fear
not," said he to the desponding people, " stand firm, and see the
salvation which Jehovah will effect for you to-day. Jehovah
will fight for you, and ye shall be still." It was now to be clearly
shown, that the ways of God, though they may appear to be
foolish by the side of the wisdom of men, ensure the result in
the safest, quickest, and most glorious way. "Forward!" sounded
the command of the leader of Israel, " straight through the midst
of the deep sea," through which the omnipotence of Jehovah was
about to open a pathway on dry ground. The angel of God,
who went before the army of Israel in the pillar of cloud and
fire, passed over their heads and placed himself as a rampart
between the Egyptians and the Israelites. To the former he
appeared as a dark cloud, deepening still further the darkness
of' the night; to the latter as a brilliant light, illuminating
the nocturnal gloom.   Moses did as Jehovah commanded
him; he raised his staff and stretched his hand over the sea.
Jehovah then caused an east wi;nd to blow, which continued
the whole night, until it had laid bare the bottom  of the
sea, and divided the waters asunder. The children of Israel
passed through the midst of the sea on dry ground, and the
waters were as walltts unto them on the right hand and on the
left.  The foe, bewildered, driven forward by the vehement
determination to prevent a second escape of those whom they
had regarded as so sure a prey, and unable, from the darkness
that surrounded them, to discover the extent of the danger to
which their attempt exposed them, rushed on with thoughtless
haste in pursuit of the fugitives.  As soon as the morning began




342                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
to dawn, Israel had reached the opposite shore, and the Egyptians found themselves in the midst of the sea. Then Jehovah
looked out from the pillar of cloud and fire, upon the army of
the Egyptians; terror came upon them; wild confusion and
thoughtless uproar impeded their march, and they shouted to turn
back and fly. But Moses had already stretched out his hand
over the sea again; and the waters, which had hitherto been
standing like walls on either side, began to give way at the
western end. The Egyptians rushed back and met the torrent;
and Pharaoh, with all his horses, his chariots, and horsemen (5),
was swallowed up by the sea.  When morning came, the
bodies of the Egyptians were washed up by the current upon the
shore. Then Israel saw that it was the hand of Jehovah, which
had been lifted up and had saved them; and they feared the
Lord, and believed on him and on his servant Moses. The
strong emotions of gratitude which filled the heart of Moses,
burst forth in a lofty song of praise to their exalted deliverer.
The anthem was sung by Moses and the chorus of men, whilst
Miriam, the prophetess, Aaron's sister, at the head of a chorus
of women, accompanied the choral-anthem of the men with
timbrels, dances, and songs (6).  This was the farewell to the
first passover, which ended as it had begun, with deliverance
and salvation.
(1). With regard to the circuitous route by Sinai, it is said
in chap. xiii. 17: " God led them not by the road through the
land of the Philistines (along the shore of the Mediterranean),
which was the nearest way; for God said lest peradventure the
people repent when they see war, and return to Egypt." It
is necessary, first of all, to do away with a misapprehension,
which has crept in here, to the effect that reference is already
mlade in this passage to the forty years' sojourn in the desert,
and that it was necessary that a new generation should grow up,
before the conquest of Canaan could be thought of. The rem-oval of the difficulty spoken of here could have been effected




PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA.            343
in much less than 40 years.  The sojourn at Sinai, which lasted
ibr an entire year, and the wonderful works of God with which
they became acquainted by that time, must have been amply
sufficient for this. It was not by the natural facilities afforded
by their new unfettered life in the desert, so much as by faith,
that the cowardice of Israel was to be overcome, and courage
infused into their minds; and the events of the first year surely
supplied all that was needed to strengthen faith.  The sentence
of rejection, which condemned the Israelites to wander in the
desert for forty years, was simply a punishment for the want of
that faith, which could and should have been matured by the
works of God. The despair of the Israelites, when Pharaoh
pursued them with his chariots and horsemen (xiv. 10 sqq,),
soon showed how necessary such a precaution had been. The
Philistines were a thoroughly warlike and powerful nation.
Moreover, they were not destined to be exterminated, as the
true Canaanites were; nor was their land, for the present at
least, to be taken possession of by Israel.
Many readers may, perhaps, have been surprised to find only
the negative and subordinate reason for their circuitous route
mentioned here, viz. the impossibility of avoiding a collision
with the Philistines; whilst no reference is made to the more
important and positive motive, namely, the necessity for the
conclusion of the covenant and giving of the law, previous to
their entrance into the promised land. But we find a solution
of this difficulty in the fact, that the immediate circumstances
brought the negative reason more prominently before the author's
mind;-the conflict with Pharaoh, which he was just about to describe, keeping his attention rivetted for the time to this particular point of view.
(2). We must not confound the reason for their tzerning round,
and remaining within the Egyptian territory (chap. xiv. 3), with
the reason for their circuitous route across the desert of Sinai.
For the former the following causes may be assigned: (1) it
was no circuitous route, to turn round the mountains as they did
towards the Red Sea; for the road to the sea was the straight
road from Egypt to Sinai.  Such a leader a~s Jehovah, who knew
how to make for his army a dry pathway through the depths of
the sea, did not need to keep the circuitous caravan-road which
goes round the sea. That which Pharaoh and every one else




344                   ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
regarded as the wrong road (xiv. 3), was under the leading of
God (and so it is called in Ps. cvii. 7) a " right way."-(2). Whilst
the road through the sea was the most direct, and therefore outwardly the most expedient; there were other internal grounds,
which concurred to render it the most desirable.  The first of
these had reference to Pharaoh.  We find it expressed in chap.
xiv. 4: " I will harden his heart, that he shall follow after them;
and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh and upon all his host, that
the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord." And there was
also a reference to the nations round about, with whom the history of Israel was immediately to colme in contact.  The importance of the event, considered in this light, is hinted at, and
foretold in Moses' song of praise (chap. xv. 14 sqq.):
"The people hear it, they are afraid,
Terror seizes the inhabitants of Philistia.
Amazed are the princes of Edosm,
And trembling takes hold of the mighty in Moab,
All the inhabitants of Canaan despair.
Dread and fear fall upon them,
By the might of thine arm they are stiff as a stone,
Till thy people are through, 0 Jehovah,
Till the people, which thou hast purchased, are through."
And, lastly, there was a reference to the Israelites.  Their faith
was greatly strengtChened thereby; it led them to place gTreater
confidence in Jehovah, and to trust more in Moses, the servant
of Jehovah (xiv. 31); and they also learned, and proclaimed in
their song of praise, that Jehovah was " the true man of war"
(xv. 3), " a king to all eternity" (xv. 18).
(2). On the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire, which went
before the children of Israel when they departed from Etham,
and accompanied them during the whole period of their journeying through the desert, consult Camp. Vitringa, Observ. ss. v.
c. 14-17.  Even this miracle has not been left, without some
attempts to explain it as a natural phenomenon. In the opinion
of HIerm. v. d. HIardt (Ephemerid. philol. discurs. 6, p. 86, and
210 sqq., and also Ephemerid. illustr. p. 93 sqq.) the pillar of
cloud and fire was the sacred fire of the Israelites, which had
been preserved by the patriarchs both before and after the flood,
fiom the time of the first sacrifice, which was consumed by fire
from  hWeaven.  This fire, he says, was brought by Jacob into




PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA.            345
Egypt; and when the Israelites departed from Egypt, it was carried by Aaron in front of the army, as a symbol of the presence
of God. A similar custom is said by Curtius to have been observed by the Persian armies (iii. 3-9): " Ordo agminis fuit
talis. Ignis, quem ipsi sacrum et aeternum vocant, argenteis
altaribus praeferebatur." Toland's opinion (in his Tetradynami
Disc. 1) has met with more approval than Hardt's. He believed
it to have been nothing but the regular caravan-fire, which was
carried before the people at the top of a long pole, by the guide
who was appointed for that purpose, as a signal of the route they
were to take.  That this custom was adopted in ancient times,
not merely by the large trading caravans, but also by the armies
of the East, especially when they were travelling along unknown
and difficult routes, has been sufficiently attested by witnesses
of earlier times.  Curtius says with reference to the march of
Alexander the Great (v. 2-7): " Tuba, cum castro movere vellet,
signum dabat: cujus sonitus plerumque, tumultuantium fremitu
exoriente, hand satis exaudiebatur.  Ergo perticam, quae undique conspici posset, supra praetorium statuit, ex qua signum
eminebat pariter omnibus conspicuum.  Observabatur ignis
noctu,fumus interdiu."  To the present day the same custom is
adopted by trading caravans, according to the testimony of Iarmar (Beobachtungen i. 438 seq.), the author of the Description
de l'Egypte (viii. 128), and others. Even in the cities of the
East, when there are any evening processions, iron fire-baskets,
with pine-wood burning in them, are carried in front, on the top
of a long pole (Russegger Reis. ii. 1, p. 38).-Toland still takes
the trouble, to endeavour to bring everything contained in the
scriptural narrative respecting the pillar of cloud and fire, into
harmony with this custom.  But the modern supporters of the
same view (e.g. Wianer ii. 696, Ewald ii. 164 sqq., and many
others) for the most part admit without hesitation, that the
author intended to relate a miracle, and treat his account as
a mythical embellishment of the simple custom we have just
described.  Kister is the only one who admits the historical
character of the biblical narrative, regards the whole transaction as suited to the circumstances and worthy of God, and
yet adheres to this natural explanation.  He says:'; "We have
undoubtedly to understand by this pillar of cloud and fire the
ordinary caravan-fire, used upon their march by the armies of the




3,6 T-ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
east.            The cloud was a symbol of the presence of
God, and in it Israel saw Jehovah face to face (Num. xiv. 14).
It derived its worth entirely from the belief of the Israelites, that
Jehovah was visibly among them in the cloud and in the fire;
and therefore what we have here is not a mythical embellishment
of a simple fact, but the simple fact itself, exalted by faith and
a religious idea.  Hence we are told with the greatest candour,
that the guidance of Jehovah did not render careful reflection on
the part of Moses himself, or the good advice of others, at all
superfluous (Num. x. 31)." We should not make the slightest
objection to this explanation of K5ster, if there were any possibility of showing that it was in harmony with the text. But it
must be apparent to every one that this is not the case.  The
only course open to us, in fact, is either to admit the historical
character of the miracle, however incomprehensible it may be,
with all the startling phenomena and effects attributed to it in
the scriptural narrative, or else to pronounce everything that is
supernatural in the account a mythical embellishment of later
times. From the standpoint which we have adopted, in relation
to the sacred history and its original records, it follows as a
matter of course, that we adhere to the first of these.
Still we cannot but acknowledge, that in the pillar of cloud
and of fire, in which Jehovah himself accompanied and conducted
his people, there was some reference to the ordinary caravanfire, which served as a guide as well as a signal of encampment
and departure to the caravans and armies of the East.  For, in
the design and form of the two phenomena, we can trace exactly
the same features; the difference being, that the one was a merely
natural arrangement, which answered its purpose but very imperfectly, and was exceedingly insignificant in its character,
whilst the other was a supernatural phenomenon, beyond all comparison more splendid and magnificent in its form, which not
only served as a signal of encampment and departure, and led
the way in an incomparably superior manner, but was also made
to answer far greater and more glorious ends.
The following is our idea of the connexion to which we have
alluded: As the armies and caravans of other nations required
that a caravan-fire should be carried before them, whose ascending smoke by day and brilliant light by night could be seen by
the whole procession; so did Israel stand in need of some such
2




PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA.             347
visible signal in its journey through the desert.  But, whilst a
caravan-fire carried at the head might suffice for a trading caravan of some hundreds or even thousands of persons, and for an
army of some thousands or even tens of thousands of soldiers;
no contrivance upon so small a scale could possibly have sufficed
for two millions of men, with wives and children, besides a large
quantity of cattle and a considerable amount of baggage. Even
on their journey, a mere fire carried at the head of the procession would have been almost invisible to those behind, and it
would have been entirely useless on the breaking up of the camp
after a period of rest.  For, whenever they rested for any considerable time, the different parties were obliged to scatter themselves far and wide for the purpose of seeking suitable spots on
which to pitch their tents, and fertile oases in which to feed their
flocks. Now, if Israel had had no other means of accomplishing
all this, than such as are possessed by nomad tribes in general, it
would have had to contend with just as many difficulties, hindrances, and dangers, as they are inevitably exposed to.  But
Israel was not to migrate like any other tribe.  Jehovah had
delivered them from Egyptian bondage, and led them out by His
powerful arm; Jehovah had determined what their destination
should be, and He himself would lead them thither.  As He had
already removed every obstacle in Egypt by signs and wonders;
so would He remove them in the desert also. And as He afterwards caused water to flow from the rock to satisfy the thirsty
people, and gave them quails and manna in rich abundance when
they hungered; so, instead of the miserable caravan-fire, which
would have been of very little use to such a procession, He gave
them a more glorious and totally different signal to guide them
through the desert, namely, a pillar of cloud and fire, which did
not ascend from the earth, but came down from heaven.  In this
pillar He himself dwelt; it rose and fell according to circumstances; it sometimes spread itself out, and at other times was
closely condensed; at one time it went before the procession;
at another it hung suspended over it, and again it settled behind it, spreading impenetrable darkness on the one side, and
lighting up the darkness of the night on the other. The ordinary
caravan-fire bore the same relation to the pillar of cloud and
fire, as the miserable tricks of the Egyptian Charthummim to
the magnificent, all-embracing miracles, which Moses wrought




348                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
in Egypt; or rather the difference is even greater and more apparent in'the case of the pillar, than in that of the miracles in
Egypt.
That we may form at the outset as clear a conception as possible of this wonderful phenomenon, we will collect together all
the most:important particulars in our possession, respecting its
appearance and effects; but the fuller discussion of each of these
we shall reserve, till we reach the period of its historical manifestation.
When we read in Ex. xiii. 21 that Jehovah went before Israel,
by day in a pillar of cloud, and by night in a pillar of fire; we
might be led to suppose, that there were two different pillars, the
one appearing by day and the other taking its place in the night.
But it is soon apparent that this was not the case. For in Ex.
xiv. 19 and Num. ix. 21 only one pillar is mentioned, and in
Ex. xiv. 24 it is called a pillar of cloud and fire (~S'A.
The cloud was undoubtedly the vehicle of the fire, and
entirely lighted up by the fire, which caused it to shine with
brilliant splendour on the dark background of the night; whilst it
looked like a mere light cloud, in contrast with the brightness
of the sunshine.  We have no reason to depart from the literal
meaning of..A.  and God, and therefore regard the latter as an
actual cloud, formed of the same material as every other cloud,
and the former as actual fire, produced, it may be, so far as the
natural cause is concerned, from electricity. The ordinary form,
which it assumed, was that of a pillar, which moved forward
at the head of the Israelites, and showed the way to the hindmost ranks of the whole procession (Ex. xiii. 21; Deut. i. 33).
Still we must not imagine that this form was fixed and unchangeable.  When the cloud descended between the army of
the Egyptians and that of the Israelites, showing a bright light
to the latter and making the darkness m.ore intense to the
former, "so that the one came not near the other the whole
night," its form was no doubt that of a wall rather than a
pillar. When the people were to encamp for the purpose of resting,
the cloud descended; and when they were to set out again, it was
taken up (Ex. xl. 35, sqq., Num. ix. 16, sqq.). So long as they
rested, it remained suspended above the camp, at a later period
above the tabernacle (Num. ix. 16).  According to Ps. cv. 39,
3




PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA.            349
Jehovah spread the cloud over Israel as a protecting (overshadowing) covering (cf, Wisdom  x. 17, xviii. 3, xix. 7; 1
Cor. x. 1, 2; Is. iv. 5, 6),-a poetical description, which may,
however, be literally in harmony with Num. x. 34, (" the cloud
of Jehovah was over them by day, when they went out of the
camp.")
The fire in the pillar was a symbol of the holiness of God,
which moved before the sanctified people, both as a covering
and a defence.  It was the same fire which Moses had seen in
the bramble (chap. iii. 2), and the same which afterwards came
down upon Sinai, with thunder and lightning, and enveloped in
a thick cloud (chap. xix. 16). Moses had covered his face before
it, being afraid to look on God (chap. iii. 6). And so would
Israel now have been obliged to cover its face, if the fire, which
represented the presence of God, had appeared without a screen.
But in that case it could not have fulfilled its purpose, of going
before the Israelites to light their way. God, therefore, condescended to the weakness of his people; and from the very
first He caused the fire to shine upon them through an appropriate medium. Hence, as the fire was a symbol of the olioiness
of God, the cloud in which it was enveloped was a symbol of
his mercy. Nor was it merely a symbol, unattended by the thing
which it signified. In and with the symbol was Jehovah himself, with his holiness and mercy (xiii. 21, xiv. 24), or the angel
(xiv. 19) who represented him in the Old Testament, and foreshadowed his future incarnation (cf. Vol. i. ~ 50, 2).  Thus in
the pillar of cloud and fire there dwelt the holiness of the Lord
(;~n?.   my  cf. Ex. xvi. 10, x1. 34; Num. xvi. 42). This relation between the symbol and that which it represented, was
afterwards designated in Jewish theology the Shechinah. From
it proceeded all the commands of Jehovah; from it he terrified
the enemies of Israel (xiv. 24); from it he threatened the murmuring people (Ex. xvi. 10; Num. xvi. 42); and from it went
forth the devouring flame, which slew the disobedient and
rebellious (Lev. x. 2, Num. xvi. 35).
In the paragraph above, we have already expressed our opinion
that the pillar of cloud and fire first appeared as the leader of
the procession, when its course was altered at Etham. If we
read attentively chap. xiii. 17-22, it is scarcely possible to come
to any other conclusion.  For if the pillar accompanied the




t50                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
procession when it set out from Raemses; we should naturally
expect to find a statement to that effect, in the same passage in
which an account is given of their setting out "equipped," and
taking Joseph's bones along with them, (viz. in vers. 18, 19).
But there is no such statement; on the contrary they are said
to have journeyed from Raemses to Succoth, and from Succoth
to Etham; and then, for the first time, it is recorded that (henceforth) the pillar went before them. The internal grounds, on
which we may explain the fact, that this miraculous guidance
was neither granted nor required before, have been pointed out
in the paragraph.
Stickel (Studien und Kritiken 1850, p. 390) is of our opinion,
that the pillar of cloud and fire made its first appearance at
Etham. But he sees in it nothing but an ordinary caravan-fire.
In order that we may do justice to this rationalistic opinion, we
will quote the subtle arguments adduced by the critic.  "A
signal of smoke, which this caravan-fire was evidently intended
to be, would have failed of its object, so long as the procession
was moving along the fertile and well known road, when columns
of smoke iwere rising on every side.  But in Etham, at the
end of the desert, where it entered upon the open southern
steppe, such a precaution was not only judicious but necessary."
On chap. xiv. 19, 20, he says: "The arrangement of Moses
with reference to the position of the pillar of cloud (namely, that
the caravan-fire should no longer be carried before, but behind
the procession) fills us with great admiration of his inventive
mind, by which all the necessities of the moment were fully
grasped.  When the passage through the sea was about to cominence, he had the signal fire, which had hitherto been carried
at the head, transferred to the rear, and placed at the north or
north-west of the camp, between the Egyptians and the Israelites.
The result of this arrangement was, that the east wind, which
was blowing, necessarily caused a dense cloud of smoke to pass
between the two, whereas the same cloud would have blown in
the faces of the Israelites, if the fire had been carried before
them through the sea. By this means, and because the pillar
ceased to move forward, the departure of the Israelites was concealed from the Egyptians; whilst at the same time the light of
the fire, which shone towards the east upon the surface of the
sea, enabled those who were passing through, to distinguish




PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA.             351
between the water and the dry land.  But when at length the
pillar of fire left the spot, the Egyptians saw in the vacant
ground the proof that their designs were frustrated; and their
rage and eagerness to plunge forward into the dangerous road
through the sea were truly human, and can easily be understood."
Stickel's treatise, from which we have taken these passages,
has filled us with sincere admiration of the diligence and learning, the grasp and acuteness of mind displayed by the author;
for it is truly a perfect master-piece of searching and thorough
investigation, in a difficult and untrodden domain. But all the
greater is our astonishment, that, in spite of the powers of mind
which he has displayed in connexion with this subject, he should
so strikingly have failed in his attempt to reduce the pretended
mythical elements in the account before us to their historical
foundation; and that he could first of all bring himself, and
then require others, to look upon such an expedient, as he here
imputes to Moses, as something extremely clever, adapted to its
end, and worthy of the highest admiration. Truly it requires
such a faith as'"is not given to every man," a faith in comnparison with which it is a very small matter to believe in the
miracle which was wrought by God, if we are to believe in all
that Stickel tells us, with regard to the wondrous effects produced by a caravan-fire. Just imagine a procession, composed
of two million human beings, with an immense quantity of
cattle, and behind them al insignificant caravan-fire, so insignificant that the smoke which ascended from it could not possibly
have been distinguished from that which rises from the first
good chimney you may meet with,-could any one but a critic,
who takes fright at a miracle, possibly believe that the light
from such a fire shone over the heads of two millions of men,
and (at a low estimate) two million head of cattle, and then
"lighted up the surface of the sea, so that those who were
passing through were able to distinguish the water from the
dry ground?"  Who, again, can possibly believe that a caravanfire produced " a dark cloud of smoke," of such a volume that it
stood like a wall between Pharaoh's chariots and the army of
Israel; a pillar of smoke, we repeat, which cannot have been
larger than that which ordinarily rises from a single chimney?




352                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
Criticism like this can only expect its own disciples, to have
faith enough to believe such things as these.
(4). According to the biblical account, the dividing of the sea
was entirely effected by " a strony east wind."  Nothing is said
about its being favoured by the ebbing of the tide.  Still it is
not improbable, that both these powers of nature may have been
associated, in the accomplishment of this stupendous miracle.
At all events the narrative makes no mention of the ebb, which
may have contributed to some extent.  This was but a subordinate auxiliary and every day occurrence, and therefore it
lays the whole stress upon the east woind, as the instrument and
messenger of the miraculous power of Jehovah. It was not the
ebb, but the east wind, which rendered the opening of a dry
pathway through the sea an extraordinary, unheard of, and
miraculous event. It may also have been the case, that at the
spot at which the passage took place, the bottom of the sea was
raised by sand-banks, and was therefore higher at this point
than in any other; but if the scriptural account is to be relied
upon as true, this can only be regarded as a thoroughly subordinate and auxiliary feature, which it did not come within the
province of the author to mention, seeing that the miracle was
a miracle still. Moreover, if the returning waters entombed the
whole of Pharaoh's army, without the least possibility of escape,
the place cannot have been what is ordinarily termed a ford.
And lastly, the passage may certainly have taken place at one of
the narrowest parts of the gulf.  But if Pharaoh's 600 warchariots, with a proportionate number of horsemen, were in the
midst of the sea when the waves returned, and though they
turned back in the greatest haste, were unable to reach the
Egyptian shore, the breadth cannot have been so very inconsiderable.
There is a diversity of opinion as to the direction of the wind,
by which the miracle was effected. In the Septuagint we have
again the rendering VdTO' (cf ~ 31. 2). Modern commentators
maintain that the expression D17-. no was currently employed
to denote any "strong" wind, so that a west wind or a north
wind would have been called by the same name. Hence it has
for the most part been assumed, that in the present instance it
was a north wind, this being regarded as the most suitable wind




PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA.           353
t o dry up a ford at the northern end of the gulf.  But there
is no foundation for such an opinion. The words, as they stand,
can only refer to a wind from the east. But as the author did
not select his terms with mathematical precision, according to
the points of the compass; there does not appear to be any objection to the supposition, that the wind blew from the north-east
or south-east. The latter is the more probable of the two. For;)7p rand literally means a wind which blew from ~t~' and in
biblical phraseology arm  is generally suggestive of Arabia.
Such a wind would drive the water away from the point in
question, towards the northern end of the gulf, which to all appearance formerly extended much farther northwards than it
does now (cf. ~ 39. 1). But under any circumstances so much
at least must be firmly maintained, that it was not an ordinary
wind, but one which was made to blow with unwonted violence
by the omnipotence of God, and which therefore sufficed to produce phenomena, such as no other wind, however strong, could
possibly effect. But inasmuch as the writer himself gives prominence to the fact that it was a strong wind, and that it blew
the whole night, an expositor is justified in laying stress upon
the power of nature, which served as the medium, as well as upon
the peculiarly miraculous power. And in doing this it is important to remember that a very small force, if it be regular, uninterrupted, and long-continued, can produce stupendous and
almost incredible results. A suspension bridge, for example,
which scarcely moves beneath the tread of persons walking irregularly, is thrown into the most dangerous oscillations by a regiment of soldiers keeping step.
When it is stated that the water stood firm, like walls on the
right hand and on the left, the figurative character of the expression must not be so far overlooked, as that we should think ourselves obliged to assume that the water really formed a perpendicular wall on both sides. But we must also not refuse to
admit, that the meaning is, that the water was forced back on
both sides, and kept back by the uninterrupted blowing of the
wind; and yet was as surely prevented from flowing together
again, as if there had been walls erected between.
In conclusion, we may mention the passage, which Eusebius
(praep. ev. 9, 27) quotes from Artapanus, according to which
z




354                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
the inhabitants of Memphis maintained that Moses, who knew
the ground most thoroughly, took advantage of the ebb, to lead
the people through the bed of the sea while it was dry, after
they had borrowed many costly vessels and clothes from the
Egyptians.  This can hardly be supposed to be an ancient
Egyptian tradition, but must be one of modern date, originating
in the Grecian period, and is nothing more than the biblical
account interpreted to suit the interests of Egypt, by those who
were acquainted with the Septuagint translation. We can
hardly attribute any greater importance to the statement made
by Diodorus ~Siculus (iii. 39), to the effect that among the
Ichthyophagi, the inhabitants of the district in question, there
was a legend current, that the bottom of the gulf had once been
entirely exposed by an extraordinary ebb (/e'ravreCoVor17o T~?S
OaXarr'Tsl ei 7vclaCavTLa teprv); but that as soon as the bottom of
the deep was visible, the flood suddenly set in, and the sea returned to its former condition.
(5). The strength of Pharaoh's army consisted chiefly in his
war-chariots. Hengstenberg (Egypt and Moses, p. 126 sqq.)
has shown, how strongly this account is supported by information
derived from the monuments, respecting the customs of ancient
Egypt. The chariots on the Egyptian monuments are drawn
by two horses, and generally hold one driver and one warrior.
Frequently, however, three men may be seen in one chariot
(this is the rule on the Assyrian monuments), and in that case
the third is an armour-bearer.  This custom may serve to explain the use of the Hebrew word;B.j to denote an armourbearer (Ex. xiv. 7, cf. Gesenii thesaurus p. 1429). We may
be surprised to find that the number of chariots, with which
Pharaoh pursued the Israelites, was so small, viz., six hundred
picked chariots (ver. 7), when Diodorus states that Sesostris
possessed 27,000 war chariots.  But we must not overlook the
accompanying clause:.-_g.   -Af Ai], which Luther has very
correctly rendered: and whatever other chariots there were in
Egypt.  Pharaoh hastily gathered together all the available
chariots that could be procured, and did not wait till the entire
force could be brought from the most distant military stations.
The six hundred " picked " chariots probably belonged to his body
guard.  In addition to the charioteers, he was also attended by




PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA.             355
a proportionate number of horsemen (=,E. cf. xiv. 9, 23; xv.
1).  It is true that Hengstenberg takes a great deal of trouble to
prove that there is no reference to horsemen in the text, by forcing upon;-*- the meaning: chariot-soldiers. He agrees with
Chamcpollion in doubting whether the military force of the ancient
Egyptians included any cavalry at all, seeing that there is no
representation of any on the monuments.  But Wilkinson has
shown, that the command of cavalry is spoken of in the hieroglyphics as a very distinguished post, and that Diodorus describes
the army of Sesostris as consisting of 600,000 infantry, 24,000
cavalry, and 27,000 war-chariots.  It is true that, afterwards
(viz. in chap. xiv. 9, 23, and xv. 1), only horses, chariots, and
riders are named; but the riders were actually riders (D -~),
not chariot soldiers (  j~tt).    The latter, as a matter of course,
are included in the term  " chariots," especially when the word
is accompanied with the express statement contained in ver. 7,
that all the chariots were manned withchariot-soldiers (0t[t7).
Hlengstenberg's anxiety lest " an objection, by no means inconsiderable, should be raised against the credibility of the narrative," in consequence of our regarding the riders as horsemen
and nothing else, is in our opinion entirely uncalled for. Nothing
is said concerning any infantry, and there is sufficient reason for
this in the fact, that the object of the king was to pursue and
overtake the Israelites as quickly as possible.  Josephus, indeed,
on his own authority, adds 50,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry
to the six hundred chariots mentioned in the Bible (Ant. ii. 15,
3), and the Jewish tragedian, Ezekiel (in Eusebius, praep. evang.
9. 29) makes Pharaoh set out with an army of a million men.
(6). The anthem, which Moses here composed in the name of
the whole nation, was, as it were, the nzuptial song of Israel (cf.
Jer. ii. 2).  Jehovah had rescued his chosen bride from the
hands of her oppressors, and was about to lead her to the marriage altar at Sinai.  With her deliverance from bondage still
fresh in her memory, and looking forward with a longing heart
to her approaching marriage (ver. 17), she uttered her feelings of
joy in a song of praise. There is not much weight in the objections, which have been made by certain critics, to the authenticity
of this song. The weakest of all, and utterly unworthy of refutation, is De Wette's remark (Krit. d. Isr. Gesch. p. 216) that
the anthem is too long for an impromptu.  Others have found
z2




356                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
evident marks of a later age in vers. 14-17.  But though we
have there a description of the fear and amazement into which
the Philistines, the Moabites, the Edomites, and the Canaanites,
have been thrown by the tidings of this miracle, it is not even
necessary to appeal to the prophetic character of Moses in order
to account for this. Without the gift of prophecy, it was possible to foresee with certainty that these nations would be alarmed,
when they heard the report of the mighty acts of the God of
Israel; for it was but natural that they should be anxious, lest
Israel's approaching march might disturb them in the possession
of their land, and that they should also feel that they could not
hope to do much to resist the power of such a God, who had
broken the pride of the haughty Egypt; and therefore Israel
could assume it as a fact.  There is more weight in the argument founded upon ver. 17:
" Bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance,
In the place, which thou hast made to dwell in, 0 Jehovah,
In the sanctuary, 0 Adonai, which thy hands have established."
But that Israel's hopes should stretch beyond the desert, after
so glorious a deliverance from Egypt; that they should look
forward with certainty to the possession of the land, which had
been promised them (Gen. xv. 16; Ex. iii. 17); that they should
feel that a sanctuary would be there required, and that a settled
spot must already have been selected for it by Jehovah-all this
was so natural, that no reasonable critic can possibly take offence
at it. Nor is there anything to object to in the fact that the song
assumed it as indisputably certain, that Jehovah had already
chosen a high and stately mountain in the promised land, as the
place where his sanctuary should be erected. For a mountain
was the most natural and appropriate spot for the offering of
sacrifice and prayer.  Abraham had to take a three days' journey,
that he might offer the most important sacrifice of his life upon
a mountain (Gen. xxii.); Moses had been told that the sacrifice
connected with the conclusion of the covenant was to be offered
upon a mountain (Ex. iii. 12); what else, then, could Moses and
Israel expect, than that in the promised land the place of worship would still be a mountain?
Miriam, who appears as the leader of the daughters of Israel




PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA.             357
on this occasion, is described as the sister of Aaron and a prophetess. There is nothing accidental or unmeaning in either of
these notices.  At the very outset the position is indicated,
which she afterwards occupied in the community of Israel. She
is called the sister of Aaron, and not the sister of Moses, because
her position was co-ordinate with that of Aaron, but subordinate
to that of Moses. Although Aaron was the brother of Moses,
yet in his official position he was only the mouth, the prophet of
Moses, and Moses was Aaron's God (~ 20. 8). And in the same
way, although Miriam had been the saviour and protector of
Moses in his youth (Ex. ii. 4 sqq.), she was placed in a position
of subordination to the brother she had saved; for Jehovah had
chosen him to be the mediator of his covenant, and placed him
at the head of Israel.  Hence, she entirely mistook her position,
when at a later period (Num. xii.), she took upon herself to
command and rebuke him.
(7). According to Jewish tradition, the passage through the
sea and the song of Moses belong to the seventh day after the
celebration of the passover in Egypt.  We have no decisive
evidence to the contrary; at the same time it cannot be positively
established from the original narrative.  In chap. xii. 39, however, it is clearly intimated that the first days of the journey fell
within the limits of the feast of the passover. This feast was a
feast of deliverance from Egypt, and the deliverance was not
complete till they had passed through the Red Sea. There is
nothing improbable in the supposition, that the appointment of
seven days, for the subsequent commemoration of this deliverance
(xii. 19), had a historical foundation in addition to the sacred
character of the number seven. This will be apparent at once,
if we consider how frequently the ideal element contained in
prophecy and revelation corresponds in a most striking manner
to the accidental, historical element, observable in the particular
events connected with the development of the sacred history.
At the same time no peculiar importance is attached to the
latter; and therefore they are only important, as they produce in
the thoughtful observer of the movements of God in history, a
salutary consciousness of the perfect symmetry and harmony,
which exist even in the most trivial and casual occurrences.
This Jewish tradition would necessarily fall to the ground at
once, if the opinion held by most commentators were correct.




358                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
that only three days intervened between the departure of the
Israelites on the night of the passover, and their encampment
by the sea at Baal-Zephon, since only three places of encampment are named (Succoth, Etham, and Baal-Zephon). But it has
already been repeatedly shown (BRaumer Beitr. p. 2 sqq., Lengerke, Kenaan i. 432), that the word VpDn did not denote a
day's journey, but a station or place of encampment, where the
tents were set up and every preparation was made for a longer
period of rest than usual. The day's journeys are called ~n.
We may see from Num. xxxiii. 8, how great the difference was
between a day's journey and a station.  According to this
passage, the Israelites, after passing through the Red Sea, went
three days' journeys (.~r~) through the desert of Etham, and
then encamped in Marah. Here, then, there was evidently a journey
of three days between two stations. So also do we read in Num.
x. 33: " And they deparated from the Mount of the Lord three
days' journey, and the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them in the three days' journey, to show them a restingplace" (-T.:C  not San3 a place of encampment). And even
supposing (though we do not grant it), that the place of encampment and place of rest were identical, it is in itself a very
improbable thing, that the Israelites only spent three days in
their journey from Raemses to their place of encampment at
Baal-Zephon by the Red Sea. Even if they only travelled three
days, it would certainly be necessary to assume, as Tischendorf
does (de Israel. transitu, p. 23), that there were periods of rest
of longer duration, i.e., actual days of rest between the three
marching days. Just fancy two million men, with large herds
of cattle, and all the baggage of emigrants, with their wives,
children, and old men, obliged to start in the most hurried
way (chap. xii. 33)! What confusion, what difficulties would
inevitably impede them during the first days of their journey I
An ordinary caravan may travel fifteen or twenty miles a day;
but such a procession would hardly be able to do the half
of this.  Let it be remembered, too, that fresh parties were
constantly joining them, and that this must have caused some
disturbance and delay. (We cannot imagine it possible that
two millions of Israelites, whose residences were scattered over
ihe whole of the land of Goshen, should all have met together




PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA.            359
in Raemses, many of them merely to retrace their steps: moreover, if we consider that they were ordered to eat the passover
at the early part of the night in their own houses, and not to
leave their houses till the morning (chap. xii. 22), we shall see
that it must have been actually impossible for them all to meet
in Raemses on the next morning, many of them  from the most
distant parts of Goshen. Raemses was the capital of the province.
There, no doubt, Moses and Aaron were residing. The procession
started thence; and after the main body had set out, smaller
parties came from all directions as speedily as possible, and
joined it at the point of the road nearest to their own dwellings).
The following considerations also serve to show, that the Israelites
must necessarily have spent more than three days, on their march
from Raemses to their encampment by the sea.  It is true that
the site of Raemses is not precisely known. But it is certain
that it must have stood somewhere in the immediate neighbourhood of the king's palace; sufficiently near, at all events, for a
communication to pass from one city to the other in a very few
hours.  Now, whether we suppose the palace to have been in
Heliopolis, Bubastis, or Zoan (and we have certainly only these
three points to choose from, cf. ~ 41. 2), the shortest route from
Raemses to the sea, taking into account the circuitous way by
which the Israelites went (chap. xiv. 2), would be so long
that it would be necessary to travel seventeen or twenty miles
a day in order to accomplish the whole in three days. Others
may believe it if they please; but I cannot believe that such
a procession as we have described, could keep up a journey
of seventeen or twenty miles a day for three days running.
Again, we find from chap. xiv. 5, that information was brought
to the king that the Israelites had turned round at Etham,
and entered the Egyptian desert on the west of the Red
Sea.  This message must have been sent to the king from
Etham itself, and of course it was not sent till after the Israelites had changed their course in the manner described.
Now the Israelites had already occupied two days at least in
going in a straight course from Raemses to Etham; and the
king's palace was certainly farther from Etham  than Raemses
was.  Hence the messenger, who was sent from Etham, may be
safely supposed to have taken one day in reaching the king; and
Pharaoh's chariots and army (even if, to please our opponents,
2




360                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT'.
we assume the possibility of that which is certainly impossible)
must also have required at least one day (!) to travel by a forced
march from Heliopolis, Bubastis, or Zoan, to the neighbourhood
of Baal-Zephon on the sea-coast. Thus, even granting the correctness of our opponents' premises, at least four days must have
intervened between the departure from Raemses and the passage
through the sea. This will show how little foundation there is
for the assertion, that " the longest space of time allowed by the
biblical narrative for these events is three days."
GEOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EXODUS.
LITERATURE: J. Clericus, Diss. de Maris Idumaei trajectione,
ad calcem comment. in Exod.-S. Deyling, Observv. ss. P. iii.
p. 45 sqq. and P. v. p. 31 sqq. —A. Calmet, Biblical researches,
with notes by Mosheirn, ii. 56 sqq. —Du Bois Aymne, Description de l'Egypte, T. viii. sur le sejour des He'breux en Egypte.
— K. v. Raumer, der Zug. der Israeliten aus Aegypten nach
Kanaan.  Leipzig, 1837; Beitroge zur bibl. Geogr. Lpz. 1843,
p. 1-5; and Palastina Ed. 3 Lpz. 1850, p. 437 —442.-J. V.
Kutscheit, H. Prof. Dr Lepsius u. d. Sinai. Berlin, 1846.-Const.
Tischendorf, de Israelitarum per mare rubrum transitu Lps.
1847; and Reise in d. Orient, i. 174 sqq.-J. G. Stickel, der
Israeliten Auszug aus Aeg. his zum rothen Meere, in the Studien
und Kritiken 1850, ii. p. 328-398.-Robinson, Palestine i. 74
sqq. —Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 55-60
transl.-L. de. Laborde, commentaire geographique sur l'Exode
et les Nombres.  Paris and Leipzig 1841, p. 75 sqq.-C. v.
Lengerke, Kenaan i. 430 sqq.-Ewald, Geschichte ii. 52 sqq.
~ 37. The district, which forms the subject of our present
remarks, is bounded on the south by the so-called Valley of
Error; on the west and north-west by the Nile and its Tanitic or
Bubastic arm; on the north by Lake Menzaleh; and on the east
by a, line drawn from the southern point of Lake Menzaleh, and




GEOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EXODUS.    361
through the Birket-Temseh (the so-called Crocodile Lake), the
Bitter Lakes and the Heroopolitan gulf. We will commence with
a minute description of the southern boundary.  The Valley of
Error (Wady et-Tih) runs due east from the village of Besatin
on the Nile to the Red Sea, and terminates in the broad plain
of Baideah on the coast. The name Wady et-Tih is frequently
restricted to the western end of the valley; further east it is
then called the Wady er-RamUijeh and still nearer to the sea
the Wrady et-Tawdrik.  The whole valley, from the Nile to the
sea, is shut in on both sides, viz., on the north and south, by
high mountain-ranges. Of these the northern range deserves a
closer investigation.  It rises from the valley of the Nile, not
far from Cairo, stretches in a straight line towards the east,
and terminates at the Isthmus of Suez in the promontory of
(Ras-) Atakah.  But near the centre the range is entirely
broken.  About twenty-three miles from Besatin, not far from
the fountain of Gandelhi (the only drinkable water in the whole
Wady), another valley branches off from the Wady et-Tih.
This valley runs in a north-easterly direction through the
northern range of mountains to the north of the gulf.  The
western half of the range is called Jebel Mokattem, the eastern
Jebel A takah.  At the present day caravans sometimes travel
from Cairo to Suez through the Wady et-Tih, but they naturally
turn into the north-eastern valley at the fountain of Gandelhi.
This road is now called the Derb el-Besatin.  In ancient times
it was, no doubt, the regular road from Memphis to Klysma (or
Suez) and thence into Asia.
Let us now turn to the western boundary, and follow it from
the village of Besatin along the Nile and its two eastern arms
to the Lake Menzaleh, into which the latter empty themselves.
On the Nile itself we first of all arrive at the ancient Latopolis
or Babylon (ancient Cairo); a little farther north is Cairo, and
somewhat to the east of this, at a distarice from the Nile, the old




362                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
city of On or Heliopolis. Within the limits of this district the
Pelusiac arm branches off from the main stream, and about
thirty miles further north the Bubastic arm. The latter flows
into Lake Menzaleh on the western side, and not far off, on the
southern side, the Tanitic arm.  Near the mouth of the latter
stood ancient Zoan or Tanis, and firther to the south on the
Bubastic arm, near the point at which it leaves the main stream,
Bubastis (now Pi Beset).  The Pelusiac arm flows into the
bay at the south of Lake Menzaleh. On the fertile strip of land
which fringes this arm on the eastern side stand, or stood, the
important cities of Belbeis (Raemses?) and Abasieh (Pithom
or Tum), both towards the south. The northern boundary is
formed by the southern side of Lake Menzaleh.
~ 38. The eastern boundary causes the greatest difficulty,
when we attempt to form a precise conjecture as to its condition
in the time of Moses. For the moveable sand has been driven
about by violent winds, and has evidently made considerable
changes in the face of the country during the four thousand
years, which have intervened between our days and the age of
Moses, and the ground has not yet been surveyed with sufficient
care, to enable us to determine with certainty of what nature
these changes have been.  At present the principle features are
the following: The breadth of the isthmus, measured in a straight
line from the southern point of Lake Menzaleh to the northern
extremity of the Gulf of Suez is about eleven geographical miles.
From the isthmus to Ras Atdakah (~ 37. 1) there is a road,
about eighteen miles long, on the western coast of the gu~f.
To the south of this promontory the Wady et-Tawarik opens
into the plain of Baideah, and to the north there is a narrow
pass, which widens at Suez into a large, barren plain. At this
point, too, a tongue of land runs into the gulf to such a distance,
that, acccording to Niebuhr, it is not more than 3450 feet or




GEOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EXODUS.          363
two-thirds of a mile across.  To the south of Suez the coast
describes a sharp curve, and runs so far to the west, that at a
very short distance off the sea is three or four miles broad; this
breadth is maintained as far as Ras Atakah, to the south of
which it becomes considerably greater. And even to the north
of Suez the sea is broader. At this point stood ancient Klysma,
a harbour in former times. At present it is buried in the sand,
but the site is still undoubtedly marked by the ruins at Tel elKolzum.  To the north of el-Kolzum  the gulf contracts again,
and still runs northwards for a considerable distance, terminating
in a narrow strip of water from 1000 to 1500 paces broad. At
Suez, where the gulf is narrowest, there are sandbanks, which
stretch from the eastern to the western shore, and when the ebb
is strong these are to some extent exposed, whilst the water
which covers the rest is so shallow, that it can easily be waded
through. On the other hand, when the flood is strong, the water
is as much as seven feet deep.l At Suez and round the northern
part of the gulf there are " evident traces of a gradual filling up of
this part of the Red Sea," (Robinson i. 71). Around the head of
the inlet, there are also obvious indications, that the water once
extended much farther north, and probably spread itself out
over a wide tract towards the north-east. The ground bears every
mark of being still occasionally overflowed, (Robinson i. 71).
~ 39. From the head of the gulf, running towards the north,
traces are still visible of the old canal which was cut for the
purpose of connecting the Nile with the Red Sea, and was very
frequently renewed.  It ran due east from the Nile through
the Wady Tumilat, crossed the dam of Arbek to reach the
1 In the year 1799, when Napoleon was returning from Ayin Mousa
on the eastern shore, he attempted to cross the ford. "It was already late
and grew dark; the tide rose and flowed with greater rapidity than had
been expected; so that the General and his suite were exposed to the
greatest danger, although they had guides well acquainted with the ground."
(Robinson i. 85).




364                  ISRAEL IN EGYIPT.
Bitter Lakes, and finally passed through the dam of Ajrud. The
Bitter Lakes are formed by a depression of the soil, to a depth
of forty or fifty feet below the level of the Red Sea.  They were
once eight or ten miles broad, but at the present day are nearly
dry, there being only a few shallow pools of salt water, and
occasionally patches of marshy ground   Their length, reckoning
from the north east, has been variously stated. According to
Seetzen, the distance from Arbek, at the north western end of
the Bitter Lakes, to Suez, is only about twenty miles; whereas
Du, Bois Ayme states that the large basin of the Bitter Lakes
terminates at a point about forty miles to the north of Suez.
Stickel (Studien und Kritiken 1850, p. 367 seq.) reconciles this
discrepancy between two trustworthy travellers, by assuming that
on the eastern side there was a narrow tongue, running up from
the basin which is ten miles broad, and reaching much farther
north than Arbek. Such a supposition is not at all at variance with
the fact, "that on the western side, along which Seetzen travelled,
the lake terminated at a point much farther south. In this case
the northern border of the Bitter Lakes must have described a
curve, from  the south-west to the north-east."   On the side
towards the gulf a broad, sandy strip of land, which is only
about three feet higher than the surface of the gulf, prevents
the confluence of the waters.  On the south-eastern slope of
this strip of land stands the present fortress of Ajrud. The
basin of the Bitter Lakes is separated from the district washed
by the Nile, and from the Crocodile Lake, by a similar but much
greater elevation of the soil, on the western slope of which Arbek
is situated (cf. Stickel p. 366). There are many facts, which
afford the strongest evidence, that the gulf of Suez once stretched
as far as this dam, and therefore that the basin of the Bitter
Lakes formed the most northerly part of the gulf (1). The
isthmus between the Crocodile Lake and Lake Menzaleh is
about fifteen miles broad.




GEOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EXODUS.    365
(1). Du Bois A yme' enters into a thorough investigation of
the ancient limits of the Red Sea, in his Description de l'Egypte
T. xi. 371, sqq.; cf. Rosenmiiller's Altherthumskunde iii. 263,
and Stickel p. 369 sqq.  Travellers are all agreed that the strip
of desert, which fringes the northern end of the gulf, bears the
most unmistakeable marks of having once formed the bottom
of the sea. The neighbourhood of the Bitter Lakes has very
seldom been visited by travellers.  But Du Bois Ayme', who
went through the basin several times, says (according to Rosenmijiler's Altherthumskunde iii. 263):  "This basin has the
appearance of having once been covered by the sea. Strata of
sea-salt are still found there, and sometimes they assume the
form of caverns.  In such places the earth resounded under our
feet.  There were also small fissures, and at a depth of four or
five metres we found water, which tasted like sea-water.  The
ground is generally marshy, with pools of salt-water. In the
sandy spots, after digging down twelve or fifteen decimetres at
the most, salt-water is found beneath a stratum of clay and
loam. The ground is covered with shells, and is much lower
than the surface of the Red Sea, from which it is divided by a
sand-bank, the height of which is seldom more than a metre
above the water of the Arabian Gulf. Lastly, along the hills
surrounding this basin we can trace a line formed by the remains
of marine vegetation, exactly resembling the line, which the
flood-tide leaves upon the shore; and what is very remarkable,
this line is exactly of the same height as the high-water mark of
the gulf."
We might, indeed, be led to suppose that the basin of the
Bitter Lakes was first of all filled by the water of the Red Sea, in
consequence of the dam at Ajrud having been cut through for
the purpose of forming a canal from the Sea to the Nile.  But
Stickel has adduced historical testimony to disprove this opinion
(p. 372 sqq.).  First of all, Strabo states (xvii. 1, 25, 26) that
in consequence of the cutting of a canal from Egypt to the Bitter
Lakes, the water of the lakes, which had previously been bitter,
was changed through the admixture of the water from the Nile.
Now, this canal was cut before the one from the Bitter Lakes
to the Arabian Gulf, and therefore the lakes must have been
connected with the Red Sea, before they were joined by a canal.
And as Stickel observes (p. 373), the proximity of the northern




366                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
boundary of the Red Sea to the Nile (the waters of which, during
the inundations, flow through the Wady Tumilat to the Arbek
dam) affords the only explanation of the fact, that Sesostris undertook to connect the two by means of a canal. But in the course of
centuries the sea retired, in consequence of the accumulation of
sand, and hence the same operation was repeated at different
periods by Necho, Darius, and Ptolemy II., the excavation
being always made from the north towards the south, so that
the last piece was the most southerly of all. And in our opinion
this piece was nothing more than the piercing of a sand-bank,
which had gradually accumulated between the basin of the Bitter
Lakes and the present extremity of the gulf. While this bank,
now the Isthmus of Ajrud, was gradually accumulating, it must
have rendered it difficult for ships to pass into the deeper water
towards the north, and hence the necessity for building Klysma.
Moreover, when this bank at length reached the surface, it must
have formed a ford across the sea, which was dry at the ebbtide, but covered with water at the flood.  There was thus a
dry road from Africa into Arabia between two basins filled with
water, similar to that which may still be seen to the south at
Suez.  The same views have been expressed by Du Bois Ayme
(sur le sejour des Hdbreux, in his Description viii. 114 sqq. cf
Rosenmiiller iii. 264 sqq.).
If we assume that the Bitter Lakes formed part of the gulf of
Suez in the time of the Ptolemies, this will throw light upon
many passages in the works of ancient writers with reference to
distances, sites, &c., which would be otherwise inexplicable,
such, for example, as the statement of Ptolemy that the city of.Klysma was six miles to the south of the northern extremity of
the Arabian Gulf, and that Heroopolis (which is identical with
Abu-Keishid in the Wady Tumilat, cf. ~ 40. 1) was only two
geographical miles from the same point.  The same may be
said of Strabo's statement, that the road from Heroopolis to the
extreme point of the gulf formed an angle with the gulf (xvi.
4, 2, 5).  Moreover, unless this city was formerly much nearer
to the gulf than it is now, it is impossible to explain the origin
of the name Heroopolitan gulf.
~ 40. If we turn now to the interior of this tract of land, the
boundaries of which we have just described, we find it divided




GEOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EXODUS.    367
into two halves, a northern and a southern half, by the Wady
Tumilat.  This WVady commences at Abasieh (the ancient Pithom), in the lowlands of the Nile, and stretches eastwards in a
straight line as far as the downs, which divide the Bitter Lakes
from the Crocodile Lake, and from the Nile when it overflows
(~ 39). To the south of this Wady, which is broad, well
watered, and therefore fertile and well adapted for cultivation,
lies the Egyptian desert, which is bounded on the other sides, by
the lowlands of the Nile on the west, the Valley of Error on the
south, and the Red Sea and Bitter Lakes on the east. The fertile district to the west and north of this desert, reaches as far as
the Bubastic arm of the Nile and Lake Menzaleh, and forms at
the present time the province of es-Sharkiyeh.  In the days of
Moses, it was called the land of Goshen. On the western slope
of the desert stands the town of Belbeis; at the north-western
corner (by the entrance to the Wady Tumilat) A basieh, and
near the eastern end of the Wady are the ruins of A bu Keishid.
Modern researches have shown that Abu Keishid is probably
identical with the ancient city of Heroopolis, and Abasieh with
Pithomn (1).  There is more uncertainty about the question,
whether Belbeis is to be identified with any known city of antiquity, and if so, with which? (ef. ~ 41).
(1). The identity of Heroopolis with Abu-Keischid, and ot
Abasieh with Pithom, was first proved by the French expedition
to Egypt (cf. Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses, p.
42 sqq.). Lepsius has taken the lead in objecting to this conclusion (Chronol. i. 345 sqq.).  He endeavours to prove that Heroopolis is rather to be associated with the ruins of el-Mukfar,
which lie farther west. The question is one of no moment to us,
and therefore we need not enter upon the discussion here.
~ 41. In order that we may trace the road, by which the
Israelites travelled, it is necessary first of all to search for the
point from which they started.  This is everywhere said to have




368                  ISTRAEL IN EGYP'T.
been Raemses.  As the land of Goshen is also frequently called
the land of Raemses (cf. ~ 1. 5), the name Raemses is sometimes supposed to have been used, not merely as the name of the
capital, but as that of the province also.  And this has led
K. v. Raumer, L. de Laborde, and others, to conclude, that
the Raemses from which the Israelites set out was the province, and not the capital.  But this explanation may easily
be shown to be inadmissible.  If Raemses is spoken of in other
places as a city (and this has never been disputed yet), then the
term   t.~  Ad  (Gen. xlvii. 11) can only be regarded as
meaning the land of Raemses, i.e., the land of which Raemses
was the capital.  Moreover, if the first places of encampment,
Succoth and Etham (Ex. xii. 37), were towns, there can be no
doubt that Raemses, the place from which they set out, was also
a city, and not a province. But it is not so easy to decide where
Raemses was situated.  Hengstenberg, Robinson, and others,
identify it with Herooplolis in the Wady Tumilat (~ 40). But
the difficulties in the way of this assumption are so numerous,
and of so serious a character, that we must decidedly reject it as
erroneous (1). Stickel, on the other hand, endeavours to prove that
modern Belbeis stands on the site of the ancient Raemses (2).
And the arguments, which he has adduced in support of this
opinion, are sufficiently weighty to convince us, that no other
place, with which we are acquainted, has such strong claims to
be regarded as the representative of that ancient city.
(1). Hengstenberg (Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 49 sqq.
transl.) adduces the following argument in support of the identity
of HERooroLIs and RAEMSES. In Gen. xlvi. 28, where the messengers whom Joseph sent to meet his father in " the land of
Goshen" are spoken of, the Septuagint paraphrases the passage thus: caO''Hpcowv rSXtv eiv rpyv Papeo-oa, and in the same
way the clause in the next verse, where Joseph himself is described as going " to Goshen" to meet his father, is rendered caO''Hpowv 7rowXtv.  Now Hengstenberg is undoubtedly correct in




GEOGRAPHICAL,*INTRODUCTION TO THE EXODUS.    369
maintaining, that the clause in the Selptuagint cannot be regarded as a rmere arbitrary conceit. And if his opinion could
be substantiated,-that the Seventy substituted the name Heroopolis, which was current in their day, for the name Raemses,
which had then become antiquated, —we could certainly give
them credit for sufficient acquaintance with the antiquities of their
own country, to take their word for the fact, that Heroopolis and
Raemses were the same.  But this is not the actual state of the
case.  There is no ground for speaking of any such substitution,
simply because the name Raemses does not occur in the Hebrew
text.  The clause, caO''HpWoov 7r0XLv, is an explanatory addition
and nothing more. The statement in the text, that Joseph sent
to meet his father in the land of Goshen (in Gen xlvii. 11, both
the Septuagyint and the Hebrew text have " the land of Raemses"),
and that he afterwards came thither himself, appeared to them
to be too indefinite. They therefore thought it desirable to introduce a more precise account of the exact spot, from their own
knowledge of the country.  The information which we have
gained since the French expedition, with reference to the site
of ancient Heroopolis, fully establishes the correctness of their
account. For if Joseph set out from the heart of Egypt to meet
his father, who was coming from  Palestine, he could hardly
take any other route than that through the Wady Tumilat;
nor was Jacob, who came from Canaan and crossed the isthmus
between Lake Menzaleh and the Arabian gulf, likely to choose
any other road than the beaten caravan-track through the Wady
Tumilat.  And if we attempt to fix upon any particular locality,
as the precise spot at which the meeting occurred; Heroopolis,
the most easterly city of Egypt by this route, has certainly the
strongest claims.  But when Hengstenberg cites Gen. xli. 45,
where the Septuagint substitutes Helio2polis for the On of the
text, as a perfectly analogous case, he forgets again that in the
passage before us Heroopolis is not introduced in the place of
Raemses, but as a more precise definition of what the original
means by Goshen.  Moreover, so far as there is any analogy
between the two passages, it is decidedly. against Hengstenberg's
opinion. For if Raemses had been the antiquated, and Heroopolis the current name, the place where the Septuagzint should
have substituted the latter for the former is Ex. xii. 37, and
nowhere else.  fiengstenberg has a further argument, derived
voT,. II.                                 2 A




37 0                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
from the meaning of Heroopolis, hero-city, which is said to be
the Greek rendering of the ancient name Raemses (the city
being evidently so called in honour of the hero-kings who bore
that name); but this argument, it appears to me, is purely
visionary and without the least force.
On the other hand, positive proof can be brought that Raemses
and Heroopolis are not the same. A city which stood so close
to the eastern frontier of Egypt, as Heroopolis did, cannot
possibly have been the point from which the procession set out,
however probable it may be that it passed through the city or
in its immediate vicinity. The point of departure, as Ex. xii.
-xiv. clearly shows, must have been quite close to the palace of
the king. And whether we suppose the palace to have been
situated in On, Bubastis, or Zoan (see below, note 2), in either
case the identity of Heroopolis and Raemses appears to us an
impossibility.
The same argument may be adduced against the assumption
of Lepsius (Chronol. i. 348 seq.), who disputes the identity of
Raemses and Hercopolis (- MukfAr), but brings forward a
new, and, as he thinks, a decisive argument to prove that
Raemses and Abu-Keishid are the same. On the ruins of AbuKeishid a group was discovered, at the time of the FrancoEgyptian expedition, consisting of three figures, hewn from a
block of granite, representing the two gods Ra and Tum, with
the King Ramses II. between them. But this is, to our minds,
by no means a conclusive argument. For the discovery of a
statue bearing the name of the great King Ramses, is by
no means a proof that the city in which it was found was
built by Ramses, or that it must have been called by his
name.  Ramses the great, who led such magnificent expeditions into Asia, may very well have caused such a memorial
to be set up in Abu-Keishid, as being the first important city of
Egypt into which he entered on his triumphant return, whatever the name of the city may have been.
(2). The arguments adduced by Stickel (p. 377 sqq.), in support of the identity of BELBEIS, and RAEMISES, are sufficient at
least to show that such an assumption is highly probable. First
of all, it is sustained by the authority of the geographer Makrizi,
who was well informed in all matters relating to his native
country, Egypt. He states that Belbeis was an ancient city,




GEOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EXODUS.    371
which was in existence before the land was conquered by the
Moslems, and was the capital of the province, which is called
in the Pentateuch the land of Goshen. The situation answers
extremely well to all that we can gather from the Pentateuch with
reference to it. For, standing as it does at one of the most
westerly points of Goshen, its position coincides exactly to
the statement, that it formed the starting-point of the Israelitish
procession.  As far back as the earliest period to which the
reports of ancient authorities reach, the city and neighbourhood
of Belbeis appear to have formed the actual starting-point of the
expeditions to the East, as well as of all the traffic that was
carried on between Egypt and the Arabian gulf. It stood upon
one of the principal canals front the Nile, by which it was
brought into connexion with the southern provinces of Egypt.
Moreover, the account contained in Ex. i. 11, that the Israelites were compelled to build for Pharaoh the store-cities of
Pithomn and Raemses, answers very well to the situation given
above, whether we suppose the cities to have been newly built,
or merely enlarged and fortified. These cities were not intended,
as Ewald supposes (i. 479), for royal commercial cities, but for
military stores and provisions, in other words they were arsenals
on a large scale, erected for the purpose of providing the troops,
which were stationed in the desert at the eastern extremity of the
land, with provisions and munitions of war. Hence they were
not actual fortresses, in which case they would have been placed
further to the east, but store-houses from which the fortresses
were supplied. It was therefore necessary that they should be
so situated, that the road to the fortresses, and also the approach
to the Nile, should be both easy and convenient.  Pithom
(Ularovuoq), which was identical with Abasieh, stood at the
entrance to the Wady Tumilat, the high road to the east, and
met these requirements in every way. The manner in which
Pithomr and Raemses are linked together, justifies us in supposing that the two cities, which were intended for the same purpose, were both erected in the district which lies between the
valley of the Nile and the eastern frontier of the country.
Abasieh stood on the road from Bubastis to the frontier; and
Belbeis was also in the way from Memphis to the same boundary.
A more difficult matter, to which we must now direct our
attention, is the determination of the site of the ROYAL PALACE
2A2




372                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
at that time. For it necessarily follows from the history of the
night, in which Israel was to prepare to depart, that it cannot
have been far from Raemses. If, then, the opinion which we
have ourselves expressed at ~ 1. 5 be correct, viz. that the
palace was in Zoan or Tacnis, which stood near to the point at
which the Bubastic arm of the Nile enters Lake Menzaleh; the
result of the foregoing investigation, viz. that Raemses was the
same as Belbeis, or at any rate stood in the neighbourhood of
Belbeis, must necessarily fall to the ground. The former assumption rests upon passages of Scripture. One of these, Num.
xiii. 23, states that " Hebron was built seven years before Zoan
in Egypt;" but this merely proves that, in the time of Moses,
Zoan was already a comparatively old and important city in
Egypt. It says nothing whatever with regard to the residence
of the Egyptian kings. Nor is there a reference to this point in
any other part of the Pentc teuch. The second passage is apparently more important. In Ps. lxxviii. 12, 43, the wonders in
the land of Egypt are said to have been wrought in the field of
Zoan (lY_-.i?).  But even these words cannot be said to be
conclusive. The " field of Zoan" may denote the whole Delta;
and it is the more probable that it does so, because the Egyptian
plagues were not restricted to the immediate vicinity of Zoan,
and it is expressly and repeatedly said that they extended over
the whole of the land of Egypt. If, however, the Psalmist gives
the name of Zoan to the Delta, this certainly proves that Zoan
was at that time the most important city, and possibly the royal
residence; more than this it does not prove. But if we consider,
that the history before us relates to a period, when the yoke of
the foreign Hyksos-dynasty had just been thrown off, and there
was constant fear lest they should again attack the eastern
frontier of the land, across which they had been driven (Ex. i.
10), it seems hardly credible that the Egyptian kings can have
fixed their residence in the most northerly district of the country.
The national dynasty, which was now in power, had come down
from Upper Egypt. The source of its strength, and its chief
supporters, were still to be found there, and it can hardly, therefore, have fixed its abode at so great a distance to the north;
for Tanis is very far to the north of the line by which an attack
from the east would be made. Any such attack would be sure
to be directed against the heart of the land, which was much




GEOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EXODUS.    373
farther to the south, and for this the Wady Tumilat afforded a
convenient and well beaten road. Hence if the king's forces had
been stationed so much to the north, they could very easily have
been cut off from upper Egypt.  One of the cities to the south
would therefore be much more suitable, either Heliopolis, as the
Arabian geographer Kaswini (in Stickel, p. 383) supposes, or
what would answer much better to the probable site of Raemses
(= Belbeis), the ancient and celebrated Bubastis.  All the other
references contained in the Pentateuch apply equally well, or even
better, to one of these two cities, than they do to Zoan.
~ 42. Assuming then, for the reasons just assigned, that Belbeis was most probably the starting-point of the procession, we
have now to determine the direction which it took. It was to
proceed to Sinai. To accomplish this it was necessary that it
should go round the northern extremity of the Arabian gulf.
Now, if the northern boundary of the gulf was exactly the same
in the time of Moses as at the present day, the procession will
probably have gone by the caravan-road direct from Belbeis to
Suez (Derb el-Ban); and in this case we must look for Succoth
about the centre of the road, and Etham to the north of Suez.
But, as we have shown in ~ 39. 1 that it is almost certain, that
at that time the northern end of the gulf reached much farther
to the north than it does now, viz., to the downs of Arbek, which
are almost in a straight line with Belbeis, we are brought to the
conclusion that instead of taking a south-easterly direction, the
procession travelled due east through the well watered and cultivated district of the Wady Tumilat.  The site of the first
station, Succoth (which means tents), is then easily determined.
The second place of encampment is called Etham, and is further
described as being " at the end of the desert."  For this we shall
have to seek upon the downs of Arbek (~ 39), between the Bitter
Lakes and the Crocodile Lake (1).  At this point Moses received
the command to turn round, and cause the people to encamp
with Pihachiroth on the north, Migdol on the west, the sea on0




374                  IS AEL IN EGYPT.
the east, and Baal-Zephen to the south.  Fromn the words of the
command so much at least may be inferred with certainty, that
the procession, which had already arrived at the boundary between Egypt and Arabia, did not go round the northern extremity of the gulf, as Mloses at first intended, but remained within
the territory of Egypt, going southwards along the western shore
of the gulf, and at length arriving at a point, where it was completely shut in, by the sea and mountains in front and on the
two sides, and by Pharaoh's chariots in the rear.  If we look
for a spot on the western shore of the gulf, which answers to this
description, we find it in the plain of Suez.  This plain is large
enough to hold two millions of men; it is bounded on the west
and south-west by the mountains of Atakah (~ 37), and these
mountains approach so nearly to the sea, which is here considerably widened in consequence of a rapid curve to the west,
that very few men could pass side by side along the shore.-If
the procession came from the north or north-east, the thirdoplace
of encampment cannot have been any other than the plain of
Suez, and this, too, is the only point at which we can justly suppose that the passage through the sea occurred (2).
(1). The name ETHAM is explained by Jablonsky from the
Egyptian, as meaning sea boundary.  If it were of Semitic origin, it would necessarily be connected with jn~, perennitas.
It would in this case denote a place watered by perennial streams,
in contradistinction to the brooks of the desert, which are so
quickly dried up.  The question, whether the "end of the
desert," where Etham was situated, is to be understood as referring to the Egyptian desert (as in chap. xiv. 3. 11), or the
Arabian, both of which touched each other at Etham, may perbaps be decided in favour of the latter, when we consider that
the whole strip of desert land on the eastern coast of the gulf
bore the name of desert of Etham (Num. xxxiii. 8, cf. ~ 47. 5).
(2). The plain of Suez " is not far from ten miles square;
extending with a gentle slope from Ajrud to the sea west of
Suez, and from the hills at the base of AtAkah to the arm of the




GEOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EXODUS.    375
sea north of Suez" (Robinson i. 65). In the boundaries of the
plain which are given here, we think we can discover with comparative certainty the places mentioned in Ex. xiv. 2. The
words which we find there are, "speak to the children of Israel
that they turn round and encamp before Pihachiroth, between
Migdol and the sea, and, before Baal-Zephon, opposite to it shall
ye encamp by the sea."  Pihacchiroth, we find, even by name,
in Ajrud; for Pi is merely the Egyptian article, and hence the
place is also called Hachiroth in other passages (Num. xxxiii. 8),
and there are many instances of analogous changes (cf. Stickel,
p. 391). Mligdol, in any case, must be looked for in the direction exactly opposite to the sea (according to Ex. xiv. 2), and
therefore near Mount Atcdkah, whether BMigdol (which means a
tower) was a fortress upon or by the side of the mountain, or, as
Tischendorf supposes, the summit of the Atakah itself. In the
Septuagint it is rendered May8Xozv, and Hengstenberg (p. 59)
thinks himself justified in connecting it with the fortress of
lUiagdolum, which stood at a latter period twelve Roman miles
to the south of Pelusium.  But the supposition that, whereas the
other three places mentioned as the boundaries of the encampment were all in the neighbourhood of Suez, the fourth was
fifteen geographical miles to the north, is perfectly incredible,
and is not rendered a whit more probable by the remark that a
frontier-garrison was stationed there.   Moreover, apart altogether from the distance, the Israelites would not then have
been between Migdol and the sea, but the sea between Migdol
and the Israelites. Baal-Zephon (the place of Typhon) cannot
be more particularly described; but according to the description
contained in Ex. xiv. 2, it must be looked for at the south of
the plain of Suez.
The point at which the sea was crossed was, therefore, in all
probability, near to Suez. But there are strong reasons for
doubting whether the ford of Suez was in existence then, and also
whether the sea was then only 3450 feet broad at this spot, as it
is now. For if that had been the case, the return of the waters
which had been divided by the east wind, would hardly have
been sufficient to drown Pharaoh's entire army. It is necessary,
however, that the peculiar configuration of the sea at Suez
should be kept in mind. If the pathway through the sea went
in a south-easterly direction, and not due east (a supposition 1-,y




376                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
no means improbable, seeing that the direction depended upon
the wind which opened the way), then even at present the
breadth and the depth would be quite sufficient to hold and to
drown an entire army.
The only point in which Dfu Bois Ayme and Stickel differ
from the views we have expressed, is with reference to the last
place of encampment, and the spot at which the sea was crossed.
They both of them fix upon the supposed ford at Ajruld (~ 39. 1),
instead of Suez, as the place where the passage occurred.  But
there are many objections to this. First of all, the ground about
Ajrud does not answer in the least to the description of the last
place of encampment, which is given in the text.  There is no
plain sufficiently large to hold two millions of men, nor is there
the steep impassable mountain wall which reached the sea, and
caused the Israelites to be hemmed in on three sides. It is true
that Du Bois Ayme says (vid. Rosenmidler iii. 265): " The
biblical account is in perfect harmony with the position which I
have assigned to the Israelitish army; for the chain of mountains, which is visible towards the south, appears to stretch as far
as the shore." But in reading these words, we cannot escape
the feeling that, in spite of the confidence with which the author
speaks, he was conscious of a certain incongruity between the
locality referred to, and the description contained in the Bible.
Again, the order in which the boundary-points are named in
Ex. xiv. 2 does not square with this view, for, according to Ex.
xiv. 2, Ajrud must have been situated to the north of the place
of encampment, whereas, if lDu Bois Ayrne's opinion were correct, it would have been to the south-east.  He also adds
(Rosenmiiuler iii. 268): " Moreover, there is so little difference
between the two opinions (that which fixes upon Ajrud, and
that which selects Suez, as the spot at which the Israelites
crossed), that it does not matter much which of the two we
choose. My opinion rests upon the situation of the castle of
Ajrud, before which the Israelites encamped, and the great probability that the sea at Suez was much deeper then, than it is
now."  This we can fully comprehend, for in the opinion of the
learned Frenchman, the sea must have been crossed in a perfectly natural way, without any miraculous intervention on the
part of God. But the greater depth of' the sea at Suez is, to
oul  m-inid, one of the very reasons why we sholu!d prefer that




GEOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EXODUS.    377
spot, not from any love of miracles, but because we are anxious
to do justice to the text.  Stickel gives the preference to
Ajrud for another reason.  This keen-sighted scholar would
no doubt have fixed upon Suez, —as the description contained in
the text, when compared with the shape of the ground, unconditionally requires,-were it not that his foregone conclusion, that only three days can have elapsed between the
departure of the Israelites from  Raemses and their arrival
at the opposite shore of the sea (~ 36. 7), compelled him to relinquish such on opinion. For the distance from Etham to the
plain at Suez is certainly too great, for any one to bring himself
easily to believe, that the Israelitish procession could traverse it
in a single day.  But we have already pointed out, that the
journey from Etham to the point at which the sea was crossed,
must have occupied a longer time, seeing that the message was
sent from Etham to the palace, and the royal army marched from
the palace to the sea, whilst the Israelites were travelling from
Etham to the same spot. This must have required at least two
dlays (~ 36. 7).
(3). We shall conclude by giving a short sketch, and, where
necessary, our own criticism of the different views which have
been entertained, with regcard to the crossing of the sea. Among
the earliest is one which has lately been defended with great
firmness and confidence by K. v. Raumer, and of which v. Lengerke has most remarkably expressed his approval (Kenaan i.
432 sqq.).  In all that is essential J. V. Kutscheit also adopts
it. It originated with Sicard (cf. Paulus Sammll. v. 211 sqq.),
who had travelled by the road in question. Sicard, however,
pla6es the city of Raemses, the starting-point of the procession,
in the neighbourhood of the village of Besatin (~ 37), whereas
iRaumer does not regard Raemses as the name of a city, but of
the land of Goshen, and supposes the procession to have been
first formed in the vicinity of Hieliopolis or On, from which point
it went southwards to Latopolis or Babylon, and then turned
towards the east into the Valley of Error, in the first instance
with the intention of following the ordinary caravan road, which
leads through this valley to Suez, and then going round the
northern extremity of the gulf.  Succoth would in this case be
in the neighbourhood of the village of Besatin; and Ethamn, near
tihe fountain of Gandelhi, at wmhich point the caravan road turns




378                  ISRAEL IN EGYL'T,
towards the north-east, between the two northern ranges of mountains (~ 37). But, instead of carrying out the first intention,
the procession turned away from the ordinary caravan road at
the express command of God, and had to take the road through
the Wady er-Ranliyeh and the Wady et-Tawarik to the plain
of Baideah bythe sea-shore. It was here that they were overtaken
by Pharaoh and his army. With the deep sea, which is here
about fifteen miles broad, before them; with Mount Atakah on
the north, and, opposite to this, Mount Kuaibe on the south;
and with Pharaoh's chariots behind, they were to all human
appearance utterly lost.  But God caused an east wind to blow
during the night, and thus opened a way through the heart of the
sea. They followed this road; and the next morning, they found
themselves safe on the other side, at a place which is still called
by the Arabs the wells of Moses (Ayun Musa).-At first sight
there is something very plausible in this view.  But on closer
investigation we find it beset with insuperable difficulties.  Its
main features are not derived from scriptural data, but from the
statements of Josephus (Ant. ii. 15, 1), who says that the Israelites started from Raemses above the place where Babylon
was afterwards built (Latopolis, Old Cairo). But no particular
evidence is required to prove, that the authority of Josephus is of
little value in questions of this kind.  Moreover, his account is
founded upon the tradition, which has given to the valley the
name of Wady et-Tih (Valley of Error), and which fixed upon
Ayun Musa as the spot near to which the passage took place.
But with regard to the first, the name WVady et-Tih originated
with Sicard, and for the second we must bear in mind the
warning given by Niebuhr (Beschreib. v. Arabien p. 404), who
says that the Arabs always declare the spot, at which the question is proposed to them, to be the very spot where the children of
Israel went through the Sea.  As decisive objections, however,
the following are of especial importance: (1), Raemses is always
the name of a city, never of a province (cf. ~ 41). (2), Justice
is not done to the word:1.W7 which always means to turn. (3),
The same remark applies to the expression" Etham, at the end
of the desert;" for, according to Ranmer's hypothesis, Etham was
not at the end, but in the middle of the desert. (4), Without the
least ground for so doing, it gives us two Ethams, one in the
Egyptian desert and the other in the desert of Arabia Petrwma.
2




GEOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EXODUS.    379
(5), It places the passage through the sea at a point where the
sea is too broad, not indeed for it to be miraculously divided, but
for the natural part of the event, namely their crossing over in
the time stated. The breadth of the gulf at this point is fifteen
miles. Now a few hours of the night had certainly gone, before
the sea was sufficiently dried up by the east wind, to allow the
passage to commence; and yet at the morning watch (two o'clock),
they were on the opposite shore.
A second class of commentators fix upon Suez as the point at
which the passage took place.  This class includes Niebuhr,
Robinson, Henystenberg, Laborde, Ewald, Tischendorf, and
many others. But whilst they agree upon this point, they differ
in many respects as to the road by which Suez was reached.
Hengsten berg's opinion is that the Israelites started from Raemses,
which he supposes to have been the same as Heroopolis; that
Etham was at the point, which now forms the northern extremity
of the gulf; and that when the procession had reached that point
it turned round, that is went back into the Egyptian territory,
and proceeded along the western shore of the gulf, till it reached
Suez, where it passed through the sea upon dry ground. Robinson
gives upon the whole the same route, but leaves it an open question, whether Heroopolis was identical with Raemses; though he
has not the least doubt that Raemses was situated in the Wady
Tumilat, not far from the northern extremity of the Bitter
Lakes.  From  our previous enquiry, however, it necessarily
follows that this opinion is erroneous. Ewald's view is closely
related to that of Hengstenberg, only much more confused (cf.
Stickel's critique, p. 358 sqq.). Laborde looks upon Raemses as
a name applied to the whole of the land of Goshen, and supposes
the Israelites to have assembled at Succoth, whence they proceeded in a straight line to Etham, which was somewhere in the
neighbourhood of Ajrud. There they received a command from
God, not to travel any farther in a easterly direction, and went
towards the south-east to Suez. From this point they crossed the
gulf, still in a south-easterly direction, and emerged at Ayun
Musa. After what we have already said, we regard it as unnecessary to criticize, that is, to refute this opinion. Tischendorf
supposes the procession to have started from Heliopolis, whence
it proceeded to a spot somewhere near the northern end of
the Bitter Lakes (which in his opinion was at that time




380                 ]S}8AEL IN E'GYPT.
the northern boundary of the gulf). At this point it turned towards the south-east and proceeded to Suez. In several essential
points his view agrees with our own.
Lastly we may mention Thierbach's romantic conjecture (Erfurter Osterprogramm, 1830); though we do so, merely to make
the list complete. According to his view, the Israelites set out
from Heliopolis (i.e., Raemses). They then journeyed to Pithom,
(or Etham) on the Mediterranean (the sea of reeds). From
this point they proceeded through Lake Menzaleh. Here the
phosphorescence of the water supplied them with light; and at
the same time a cloud, which hung suspended like a pillar
over the surface of the water and was strongly charged with
electricity, was driven behind them by a change in the wind,
and discharged its electric fluid upon the foe. Thus death and
destruction fell upon the Egyptians, whilst light and safety were
afforded to the Israelites. Compare Stickel p. 331, 332.
THE HYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.
SOURCES: vid. Bunsen's Urkundenbuch, an appendix to the
third part of his work on Egypt; C. Mieier, Judaica, Jena 1832;
and Stroth, Aegyptiaca, Gotha 1782.
LITERATURE: Jac. Perizonii Aegyptiarum originum investigatio. 1711. c. 19 p. 327 ss.-Fr. Buddei, Historia ecclesiastica V.
T. I. iii. ~ 24, Ed. iv. p. 560 ss.-Thorlacius de Hycsosorum
Abari. Copenh. 1794.-J. Chr. C. Hofmann, unter welcher Dynastie haben die Israeliten Aegypten verlassen? (in the Studien und
Kritiken 1839. ii. p. 393 sqq.), and also, Aegyptische und israelitische Zeitrechnung, ein Sendschreiben an Dr B6clkh. Nordl.
1847. —E. Hengstenberg, Manetho and the Hyksos, in his Egypt
and the Books of Moses, p. 227 sqq. transl.-E. Bertheau, zur
Gesch. d. Israel. p. 227 sqq.-H. Ewald, Gesch. d. Israel. i. 445
sqq.-C. v. Lengerke, Kenaan i. 360 sqq.-A. Bdckh, Manetho
und die Hundssternperiode, Berl. 1845.-Chir. C. J. Bunsen,
Aegyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte, 3 vols. Hamburg 1843.
8




THE LIYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.         381
R —. Lepsius, die Chronologie der Aegypter, i. Berlin 1849,
and Herzog's Real-Encyclopcldie d. prot. Theol. i. 144 scqq.J. L. Saalschiitz, Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der hebr. dgypt.
Archiologie, K6nigsb. 1851, iii. Die manethonischen Hyksos,
p. 41 sqq.-Consult also: J. G. Miller, Krit: Untersuchung
der Taciteischen Berichte tiber den Ursprung der Juden, in the
Studien und Kritiken, 1843, iv. p. 893 sqq. —Fr. WTerner, chronologische Bemerkungen fiber einige Gegenstdnde der alttestamentlichen Gegenstinde (in the lutherische Zeitschrift, 1845,
i. p. 29 sqq.) —K. B. Stark, Forschungen zur Geschichte der
Alterthumskunde des hellenischen Orients: Gaza, oder die philistaiische Kiiste, Jena 1852, p. 82 sqq.-Fr. Delitzsch, Commentar zur Genesis, 2. Aufl. 1853, ii. 71 sqq.; and Nachtrag
p. 221 sqq. —A.'Knobel, Die Vlkertafel der Genesis, Giessen
1850, p. 208 sqq.; and Genesis p. 271 sqq.-Raoul-Rochette, in
the Journal des Savants, 1846 and 1848, (review of Bunsen's
work), particularly 1848, p. 354 sqq.
~ 43. The Pentateuch does not inform us what dynasty was
in power, or what king was reigning, either when the Israelites
went down to Egypt, when the oppression commenced, or at
the time of their departure.  We must therefore turn to the
Egyptian and other profane history before we can solve these
questions; and what we have now to do, is to determine from
these sources, to what periods of time the events described in the
Pentateuch respectively belong. The simplest means of obtaining the information we need, would be to compare the two chronologies; but unfortunately, both in the biblical and Egyptian
histories, there is so much uncertainty, obscurity, and even
confusion, in the matter of dates, that comparative chronology
is a most uncertain, and therefore impracticable, method of ascertaining the points of coincidence between the two.  Our
knowledge of the facts, connected with the early history of Egypt,




382                 ISfAOEL IN EGYPT.
is for the most part confined to bare catalogues of dynasties,
which do not of themselves afford any information, that can be
brought to bear upon the history of Israel.  But Josephzus has
preserved two considerable fragments from the old historical
work of 2Fianetho, the contents of which coincide in many respects with the history of the Pentateuch.  The first extract
from Manetho treats of the Hyksos dynasty, and contains unmistakeable traces of the relation which existed between this
dynasty and the Israelites (1); the second identifies the Israelites
with a number of lepers, whom the king, Amenophis, is said to
have banished from Egypt (2). The same tradition, in a somewhat modified form, is found in Chaeremon and Lysimachus,
and on the authority of the latter it has been repeated by Apion,
Diodorus Sicutls, Tacitus, and Justin (3).
(1). The first extract from Manetho (on the reign of the
Hyksos) is found in Josephus against Apion, i. 14. Josephus
there says: " Manetho was a man who was by birth an Egyptian;
yet had he made himself master of the Greek learning, as is very
evident: for he wrote the history of his own country in the Greek
tongue, by translating it, as he saith himself, out of their sacred
records;' he also finds great fault with Herodotus for his ignorance and false relations of Egyptian affairs. Now this Manetho,
in the second book of his Egyptian history, writes concerning us
in the following manner (I will set down his very words, as if I
were to bring the very man himself into court for a witness):'There was a king of ours whose name was Timaus.  Under
him it came to pass, I know not how, that God was averse to us,
and there came, after a surprising manner, men of ignoble birth
out of the eastern parts, and had boldness enough to make an
expedition into our country, and with ease subdued it by force,
yet without our hazarding a battle with them.  So when they
had gotten those that governed us under their power, they afterwards burned down our cities and demolished the temples of the
gods, and used all the inhabitants after a most barbarous manner; nay, some they slew, and led their wives and children into
slavery.  At length they made one of themselves king, whose




THE HYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.          383
name was Salatis; he also lived at Memphis, and made both the
upper and lower regions pay tribute, and left garrisons in the
places that were most proper for them.  He chiefly aimed to
secure the eastern parts, as foreseeing that the Assyrians, who
had then the greatest power, would be desirous of that kingdom
and invade them; and, as he found in the Saitic Nomos a city very
proper for this purpose, and which lay upon the Bubastic channel,
but in a certain ancient theological account was called A varis, this
he rebuilt, and made very strong by the walls he built about it, and
by a most numerous garrison of two hundred and forty thousand
armed men, whom he put into it to keep it.  Thither Salatis
came in summer time, partly to gather his corn, and pay his
soldiers their wages (o'-TopueTpW'v KcaKt,tlooopav vrapex/euvo<o),
and partly to exercise his troops and thereby to terrify foreigners.
When this man had reigned nineteen years he died; after him
reigned another, whose name was Beon, for forty-four years;
after him reigned another, called Apachncas, thirty-six years and
seven months; after him Apophis reigned sixty-one years; and
then Janias fifty years and one month; after all these reigned
Assis forty-two years and two months. And these six were
the first rulers among them, who were all along making war
with the Egyptians, and were very desirous gradually to destroy them to the very roots.  This whole nation was styled
Hyesos, i.e., shepherd-kings (3aaoXe T 7TrotLEves); for the first
syllable HYc, according to the sacred dialect, denotes a king;
Sos, according to the ordinary dialect, is a shepherd; and
Hycsos is compounded of these. But some say that these people
were Arabians.'  In another manuscript (Ev 8' aiXXs avrtypd~a), however, I have found that Hyk does not denote
kings, but on the contrary captive shepherds; for Hyc, with
the aspirate (Saovvo14evov) means in the Egyptian tongue
prisoners; and this seems to me the more probable opinion and
more in accordance with sacred history. But Manetho goes on:'These people whom we have before named kings, and called
shepherds also, and their descendants, kept possession of Egypt
five hundred and eleven years. After this, however, the kings
of Thebais and the others parts of Egypt made an insurrection
against the shepherds, and a terrible and long war was waged
between them. And under a king named Alispohragmuthosis,
the shepherds were subdued by him, and were driven out of




384                  iS~RAEXL IN EGYPr:.
other parts of Egypt, but were shut up in a place that contained
ten thousand acres of land; this place was Avaris.  The shepherds built a wall round all this place, wl ich was a large and
strong wall, and this in order to keep all their possessions and
their prey within a place of strength.  But Thummosis, the son
of Alis-Phragmuthosis, made an attempt to take them by force
and by siege, with four hundred and eighty thousand men to lie
round about them, but upon his despair of taking the place by
that siege, they came to a composition with them, that they should
leave Egypt and go, without any harm being done to them,
whithersoever they would. After this composition was made,
they went away with their whole families and effects, not fewer
in number than two hundred and fifty thousand, and took their
journey from Egypt, through the wilderness to Syria.  But as
they feared the Assyrian power, which had then the dominion
over Asia, they settled in the country which is now called Judea,
and there they built a city, large enough to contain so many
thousand men, and called it Hierosolyma.' In another book
of the Aegyptiaca, ]ianetho says, that the shepherds are described
as captives in the sacred books.  And this account of his is the
truth, for feeding of sheep was the employment of our forefathers
in the most ancient times, and therefore they were called sheoherds; nor was it without reason that they were called captives
by the Egyptians, since one of our ancestors, Joseph, called himself a captive before the king of Egypt" (Josephus contra Ap. i.
14, Whiston's transl.).
(2). The second extract from Mlanetho (on the expulsion of
the lepers) is found in the same book of Josephus, (c. Apion i.
26 seq.), who says: " llanetho promised to interpret the Egyptian history out of the sacred writings, and first of all relates,
that our forefathers came in many myriads into Egypt and subdued its inhabitants. But in the next age they were expelled,
took Judea and there built Jerusalem and the temple. So far
he follows the ancient records. But after this he takes the liberty
of introducing incredible fables and legends (uvOsevo6Ceva Kcat
Xe/ryozeva, XoyouS artOravov; —according to Bk. i. c. 16: o0VK'c 7wV'rap''ALtyTvTTL'ot 7ypatHk.LaTcol, aCXX' a; avro~ C oXoylcev,
EK TrjV   Oeao'rX7C' tvO oXoY OVvv 7rpooTE'Oeuev), concerning the Jews, confounding our forefathers with a number of leprous
Egyptians, who were driven out of Egypt on account of their




THE iRYK,'SOS AID THIE ISRAELITES.       385
leprosy and other diseases. For this purpose he brings in a king
nmenomphis, whose name is a fictitious one, on which account he
does not venture to give the length of his reign, which he always
on other occasions most scrupulously does.  With this king he
associates the fables referred to, and forgets that, according to
his own statements, 518 years must have passed since the shepherds were expelled. For they left Egypt in the reign of Th/tmosis
(Thummosis).  Now -from him to,Set/hos there were 393 years;
Sethos reigned fifty-nine years, and his'son Rani,29ses sixty-six.
It is not till this point that he introduces the fabulous Amenorphs,
of whom he gives the following account:' Amenophis desired
to see the gods, as King Horulrs had formerly done.  He made
known this wish to a wise mnan, who was also named Amenophis,
and was told by him that he must first of all cleanse the land
entirely froml lepers and unclean persons.  The king then had
all the unclean persons gathered together out of the whole of the
land of Egypt, 80,000 in number, and sent them to work in the
quarries to the east of the Nile.  Among these lepers there were
some learned priests. In the meantine Amnenophis repented that
he had advised the king to expel the lepers, fearing that the
wrath of the gods might be excited thereby, and, as a revelation
was made to him a short time afterwards, that the lepers would
rule for thirteen years over Egypt, supported by foreigners, and
he durst not make this known to the king, he killed himself, and
left a written document behind him, which greatly troubled the
king. After the lepers had continued for a long time to do hard
work in the quarries, the king listened to their request, and gave
them the city of Avac-is, which had formerly been occupied by
the shepherds, but at that time was desolate.  In the ancient
theological documents this city is called the city of Typhon (Tvcox5vto'). Now, when the lepers had settled there, they chose a
priest of Heliopolis, named Osarsijph, to be their leader, and
swore that they would yield obedience to him in everything. He
first of all commanded them to worship no gods, to cease to
abstain from the animals which were regarded as sacred in Egypt,
to slay and eat without distinction, and to hold fellowship with
no mlan, who did not belong to them.  He also gave them many
other laws, which were directly opposed to the customs of Egypt.
After this he had the city fortified with walls, and prepared to
make war upon Amenophis.  He sent messengers to the. shepVOL. IT.                                   2 B




386                 ISRA EL IN EGYPT'.
herds at Jerusalem, who had been expelled by Thutmosis, and
urged themto join in a common attackuponEgypt. The shepherds
gladly listened to his appeal, and came to Avaris with 200,000
men. King Amenophis remembered the prophecy, and lost all
his spirit.  Ho gathered together the sacred animals, hid the
images of the gods, brought his son Setf7os, who was five years
old, and had been named Ramesses after his father Ranpses,
placed him under the protection of a friend, and then advanced
with 300,000 men to meet the foe. From fear of the gods, however, he did not venture to attack them, but withdrew into
Ethiopia, taking with him the sacred animals, and there he
remained in voluntary exile for thirteen years; the king of
Ethiopia being bound to him by ties of gratitude.  The Solymlites, in conjunction with the lepers, inflicted the greatest cruelties upon the Egyptians, who were left behind.  They set fire to
the cities and villages, destroyed the temples, and used the wood
of the images of the gods to cook the flesh of the sacred animals.
The priests were compelled to slaughter the:acred animals with
their own hand, and were then driven naked from the spot.
The founder of this state had formerly been a priest of Heliopolis.  He was named Osarsizph after the god Osiris, who was
worshipped there; but afterwards he was called JIoyses. After
an exile of thirteen years, Amenophis and his son Rampses returned from Ethiopia to Egypt, each at the head of a powerful
army.  The shepherds and lepers were speedily subdued, and
driven as far as the frontier of Syria.' "-Joseph'us then proceeds
to demonstrate the absurdity of this fictitious account.
(3). The account, which ilanetho gives of the lepers, is found
in the works of other authors, but with various alterations.
CHAEREMON (in Josep7uts c. Apion i. 32) relates that the goddess Isis appeared in a dream to King Azmenophis, and conmplained that her temple had been destroyed in war.  By the
advice of the priest, Phritiphas, who informs him that he will not
be disturbed by the goddess any more, if he cleanses Egypt from
all its lepers, he has 25,000 of them banished.  Their leaders,
the scribes ]oloyses and Josepos (whose Egyptian names were
Tisithes and Peteseph) conducted them to Pelusium.  There
they united with 380,000 men, whom AmLenophis had placed
there with orders not to enter Egypt, and with these they invaded
that land. Amenophis — was unable to resist their attack, and fled




THE iTrYKLSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.        387
to Ethiopia.  His wife, whose time of delivery was drawing near,
could not accornpany him in his flight, and hid herself in a cave.
There she gave birth to a son, who, when he had grown up,
drove out the Jews, at that time numbering 200,000 men, chased
them to Syria, and recalled his father from Ethiopia.
The same legend is given by LYSIMACHIus (Jo8seplvaUs c. Apion
i. 34) in a still more romantic form: During the reign of King
Bokchoris, the people of the Jews, having been attacked with
leprosy, the itch, and other diseases, took refuge in the temple,
and got their living by begging. In consequence of this, the land
was visited by fi-amine and pestilence.  The oracle of Ammon
ordered the temple to be purified from the unclean and wicked
men, who were all to be sent into the desert, with the exception
of those afflicted with leprosy and the itch.  The latter were to
be rolled up in lead and thrown into the sea. This was done.
The others, who had been transported to the desert, then took
counsel what they might do. They lighted torches and lamps
as soon as the night came on, set watches, and fasted, for the
purpose of propitiating the gods. The next morning a certain
J1ioyses advised them to go forward in a regular procession, till
they came to some inhabited country. He also commanded that
in future they should do good to no one, and should destroy
every temple and altar that they might happen to meet with.
After many obstructions, they reached Judea, where they plundered and burned all the temples, and built a city, which they
called ]fie7rosyla in commemoration of their deeds. But as this
name was afterwards regarded as a term of reproach, they altered
it to Hierosolyma.
APION, in the third book of his history of Egypt (Josephus
c. Apion ii. 2), adopts the account given by Lysimachus, but
he also embellishes it with a' trustworthy" explanation of the
manner in which the Sabbath originated.  The Jews, he says,
arrived at Judea after a six days' march through the desert. On
the seventh day they were attacked with internal ulcers, which
compelled them to rest on that day, and as this disease was known
in Egypt by the name of Sabbatosis, they called that day the
Sabbath.
TACITUS (Hist. 5. 2-5), in his description of the destruction
of Jerusalem, refers to the origin of the Jewish people.  He
cites different reports, with which he was acquainted; but does
2B2




i'~88  ~ISL'AlEL IN Ed YPtI:.
not decide in favour of either of them.  According to some, Le1
says, the Jews originally came from Crete, at the time when
Jupiter dethroned his father Saturn, and settled first of all on
the frontier of Lybia; —this opinion rests upon the supposed
derivation of the word Judcei from Iccti, the inhabitants of
Mount Ida in Crete.  Others trace the origin of the Jews to
Egypt.   They say that when Isis sat upon the throne, the
number of men in Egypt was too great, and therefore a portion
of them  emigrated under the guidance of Hlierosolymus and
JTatda and settled in a neighbouring country.  Others again
suppose the Jews to be descendants of the Ethiopians, who were
led to emigrate by their fear and hatred of the Ethiopian king
Kep heus.  According to a fourth opinion they were A ssyrians,
who first of all took possession of part of Egypt, and then settled
in the neighbouring Hebrew and Syrian lands. Others inmagined
that they were the Solymni mentioned by Homer.   But the
most general opinion of all was, that the Jews were originally
leprous Egyptians.  The account given by Lysimachus is then
served up again, and enlarged in the following way.  On their
march through the desert, they were all threatened with destruction from want of water.  Suddenly there appeared a number
of wild asses, which, after grazing, went back up a rock that was
covered by a dense wood.  Mloses thought that where there was
wood there must also be water, and following the asses actuallydiscovered some copious springs.  After a further march of six
days' duration they arrived at the Jewish land, expelled the
inhabitants; and founded a city and temple. Moses then introduced a variety of customs, which were opposed to those of other
nations; and among other things had an image of the animal,
which had saved them from perishing with thirst in the desert,
set up in the holiest place as an object of worship. —Consult
the article, already noticed, by J. G. JIiiller in the Studien und
Kritiken 1843.
JUSTIN (Hist. 36. 2) traces the origineoi the Jews to Damas —
cus. The first king of that city, from whom it derived its name,
was Damctskus. He was followed by A zelus, Aldores, A braham,
and Israel. Israel had ten sons, and divided his kingdom among
them. Shortly after the division, Jcudah, one of his sons, died.
His share was distributed among the rest, and henceforth theo
whole people were called JudCLceas.o The youngest of the brothers




TiH4E IIYKSOS AND THIE IXSg,AELtTES.
as s01od- by the rest to some foreign merchants,  who took himn
io Egypt. There he learned the arts of magic, interpreted omens
-and dreams, predicted a famine some years before it occurred,
and thus saved Egypt from  perishing with hunger. He had a
son named Ji8oses, who not only inherited his father's learning,
but was distinguished for his extraordinary beauty.  WThen the
Egyptians with the itch were banishled from the land, according
to the sentence of an oracle, he offered himself as their leader,
and stole the sacred relics from the Egyptians.  The latter pursued him, for the purpose of recovering their sacred things by
force of arms; but violent tempests arose, which compelled them
to return.  lMoses then led lis followers to his native place,
Damaskus, and took possession of MIount Syna.  As he arrived
there with his people, worn out after a seven days' fast, he set
apart the seventlh day, the Sabbath, as a regular fast-day.  They
avoided all intercourse with the inhabitants of the district inl
which they settled, from a desire to transfer to the latter the
hostility which had previously existed between themselves and
their fellow-countrymen in Egypt.  This separation gradually
became a religious law.  A a-us, the son of Mioses, combined the
royal with the priestly dignity, and from his time the Jews continued to be governed by priestly Tkings.
~ 44. The earliest attermpt, with which we are acquainted, to
reconcile these accounts with the Pentateuchc history, is that
made by Josephzls, who identifies the lepers with the Hyksos,
and both with the Israelites.  He pronounces the first account
of fatnetho,  which was taken froml early Egyptian documents,
in all its essential features, historically trustworthy,; and makes
use of it, to establish the great antiquity and historical importance
of his nati,,n, in opposition to the insults and slanders of zApion.
In the second account of Mcanetho, on the other hand, which is
evidently at variance with the first, and according to ]Icianetho's
own confession, was not derived from  any written historical
source, but merely taken from  a vague, unfounded, popular
legend, Josep2hus will not allow that there is anything trustworthy.  At the same time there is reason enough for entertain



39 0                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
ing very strong doubts, as to the sincerity of his belief in the
historical character of the first account, or at least in the correctness of the explanation which he gives of that account (1).
The nearest approach to the views of Jose phus, as expressed and
defended in the book against Alpion, is to be seen in the opinion
entertained by Delitzsch, who is inclined to regard it as a
historical fact, that Egypt was subjugated and governed by the
Israelites for several hundred years (2).  Periaonnius, Buddeus,
Thorlacius, HIofmann, and Hengstenberg look upon the two
accounts as different forms of the very samne legend; at the
same time they maintain that in both of them the actual facts,
which are to be found in a credible form in the Pentateuch
alone, have been distorted to favour the national interests of
Egypt, and that in such a manner that all the cruelty, violence,
and oppression, in a word, all the evil done by the Egyptians to
the Israelites, is transferred to the latter, a transfer suggested to
a certain extent by the measures of state adopted by Joseph
(Gen. xlvii. 13 —26) (3).  Hengstenberg also paves the way for
his line of argument with reference to the Hyksos, by describing
the pretended Manetho as a " miserable subject," and a " windmaker by profession," of the time of the Roman emperors, who
perpetrated this distortion of the Pentateuch history purely out
of his own head (4). A closer investigation of the arguments
which have been adduced, from the time of Josephus till that
of Hofmann, Flenystenberg, and Delitzsch, in support of the
identity of the Hyksos and the Israelites, will show that such
an opinion cannot possibly be sustained (5).
(1). The object of JOSEP-IUS was to rebut the insults, heaped
by Alpion upon the Jewish people, and to bring forward witnesses
to the respect and esteem, which the history of that people had
secured.  Biblical writers would have had but little weight with
the heathen Apion, as being witnesses in their own cause, but,-f so much greater worth would b!e the testimony of he(lathen??




THE flYKSOS AIND THE ISRAELITES.         391
writers, who could not possibly be charged with partiality.
Again, the unfavourable manner in which heathen writers, as a
whole, spoke of the Jews, must have heightened the pleasure,
with which he appealed to so distinguished a historian as
J'anetho.  If lianetho's account of the Hyksos could be applied'to the Jews, it was drawn up in such a way, that Josephlus could
hardly have desired anything better suited to his purpose. For
nothing was so likely to affect a man of 04Apioz's cast of mind, as
the proof that the Jews, whom he so despised, had ruled for half
a millennium  over the most powerful and magnificent, the
wisest, richest, and most distinguished nation of ancient history.
Now, we are fully convinced that Josephus himself did not believe
in the identity of the Hyksos and the Jews.  The proof of this
opinion we find partly in the fact that, in his Antiquities, which
was just the place for it, he does not seem for a moment to have
thought of inserting the account of the Hyksos given by Maanetho, in fact does not even refer to it; and partly in the care,
with which (even in the book against Apion), he avoids going
more thoroughly into the difficulties, that arise from a combination of the Hyksos legend and the Pentateztch-history.  To any
one, who is in the least acquainted with the latter, a number of
questions, doubts, and difficulties, inevitably suggest themselves,
both as to the admissibility of such an identification of the Jews
and the Hyksos, and also as to the historical character of many
of the statements contained in Mc]Iaetho's account; and any
writer, who is sincerely convinced of both of these, must be prepared to remove all such difficulties, and not pass them over in
silence or explain them away. But of this we cannot find the
least trace, in the whole of the elaborate argument of Josejilus.
He speaks andi argues in all respects just as if the identity of the
Hyksos and the Jews were a fact so fully established, that no
reasonable man ever had doubted or ever could doubt its reality.
The book of Josephuzes against Apion is not intended to subserve
the interests of historical research; its object is exclusively polemical.  Hence he lays hold of every argument, whether good or
bad, and however sophistical, and does not hesitate to throw dust
in his opponent's eyes, on all fitting occasions. Assurance and
confident assertions are expected to cover the weakness of his
own convictions. With an opponent, better acquainted with the
Pent ateuch than Apion was, he would have been unable to make




392                   ISRA.L IN EGYPT.
such random  and unsupported statements with impunity, anlld
would hardly have dared to do so. B]ut with an ignorant and
conceited man like Ajpiom, who to all appearance had obtained
his knowledge of the Isr elitish history exclusively from hearsay,
something might be ventured, especially as the occurrence of the
march through the desert, the settlement in Judea, and the building of' Jerusalem, iu the account given by Micaneteho, were quite
sufficient to convince an ignorant nman that the identity was indisputable, especially as he knew nothing of the incongruities and
contradictions which preponderate to such an extent.
(2). DELITZSCIH (p. 75) says: " What if the three Hyksos
dynasties consisted of three different tribes of Israel?  Is it not
possible that after Joseph's almost royal supremacy (according
to Artapanus in Ensebius praep. ev. 9. 23, in the end fidly royal
supremacy) over the Egyptians, the native princes were brought
into a condition of dependence, in which they were treated with
warlike cruelty by the Israelitish tribes, and that the oppression
of Israel did not begin, till Amosis had recovered both the Egypts
after a tedious war?  The four centuries, about which the Pentateuch is silent, because they presented no points of interest, so
far as sacred history was concerned, may have been of all the
greater importance in connexion with the history of the world.
When we read in Ex. i. 7: " The Israelites were fruitful and
increased abundantly, and  miultipliedl and waxed exceeding
mighty, and the land was filled with them," —it follows that they
had extended beyond the boundaries of the province originally
assigned them.  And when we find it stated immediately after.wards, that a new king arose over Egypt who was hostile to the
Israelites, and endeavoured to keep) them down by forcing' them
to work as slaves, because they had become " more and mightier"
than the Egyptians, it is evident that the king, here referred to,
was the first king of the native dynasty, which had been overpowered and confined to Thebais, but had now recovered its
supremacy.  That the prophecy contained in Gen. xv. 13 (" they
shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years")
was not irreconcileable, from an Old Testament point of view,
with a gradual increase of the power of Israel in Egypt, is evident from such passages as Deut. xxvi. 5 and Ps. cv., where,
with reference to Ex. i. 7, it is said that Jehovah made tile
Tsraelites in Egypt stronger than their enemies,  Moreover, we




rTH4E H1(SOS AND T'HE ISRAELIT'So 
know, that during' the period of their sojourning in Egypt, warlike expeditions were undertaken by theni.  Thus in I Chr. vii.
21, the Ephraimites make a predatory incursion into Philistia, and
in 1 Chr. iv. 22 we read of the descendants of Judah having clominion in M'Moab.  Again, the fact that an Israelite, named 3Mered,
married a daughter of Pharaoh, and that her name in the Semitic
dialect was Bi'jah (1 Chr. iv. 18, cf. chap. vii. 18, where a sister
of Gilead the Mianassite is called   n' Sn; HFIam-molecheth)
favours the assumlption of an Israelitish government.  The term
i ancient histories' is applied by the writer of the Chronicles to
chap. iv. 22."
These are the views of Delitzsch. We have copied the whole argument without abbreviation, because wethink it deserving of very
careful examination. There is, in fact, much that is plausible in it.
It might be even extended and strengthened by a reference to
Gen. xxxiv. 25 sqq.; inasmuch as the crime, committed by the sons
of Jacob against the Sichemites, proves that before the Israelites
went down to Egypt, and even in the case of the patriarchs tlhemselves, the disposition to indulge in the cruelties of war, and commit aggressive acts of violence, was so deeply rooted in their
nature, that we might naturally expect it, when fully developed,
to lead to some such result as the conquest and subjugation of
Egypt.  Still we must reject the hypothesis as inadmissible.
In the first place, we do not think that Delitzschl is successful,
in his attempt to account for'he fact, tllat we find no reference
whatever in the Penztateuch, to aln event so stupendous and uLnexampled a character, as the subjugation of Egypt would have
been.  With regard to the assertion that "the four centuries
about which the Pentczteuch is silent, —because they presented no
points of interest so far as saccred hisior)y was concerned,-may
have been of all the greater importance in connection with the
history of the world:" we regard such an assertion as not only
erroneous and calculated to mislead, but as altogether at variance with the general analogy of the sacred history.  We are
prepared to maintain that every thing connected with the history
of Israel, which had any important bearing upon the history of
the world, was eo ipso of importance in relation to the sacred
history, either as promoting or else as impeding and disturbing
its course. An event of world-wide importance, occurring within
the limilits of tbhe history of Israel, couldl not possibly be a matter




394                  [SAEL IN E  1prT.
of indifference, so far as the development of the sacred history
was concerned; for the peculiar characteristic of the history of
Israel was just this, that from its position in relation to the
history of the world, the history of salvation received its development in such a manner, that the political history of Israel became a history of salvation at the same time.  If the riule laid
down by Delitzsch be correct, there is a great deal in the historical books of the Old Testament which must be regarded as
irrevelant. If the author of the Pentateuch thought it necessary
to relate the injury done by the sons of Jacob to the Sichemites,
he would certainly have felt a still greater inducement, or rather
have felt compelled to record the supposed subjugation of Egypt;
for if this actually occurred, it must have been of infinitely
greater importance in connexion with the development of the
history of salvation, and must have exerted a much deeper influence upon that history, or at least upon its passing phases,
and the obstructions which impeded its course. How thoroughly
would the corrupt, ungodly, and unsubdued natural disposition
of Israel, which the sacred history so constantly and emphatically
refers to, have been set before us in the clearest light by such an
event?  How would the divine Nemesis, which the sacred history no less emphatically describes on every fitting occasion,
have found a distinct expression in the Egyptian bondage and
all the misery which Israel had then to endure! How would this
fact have furnished the future generations of Israel with a sermon,
and lesson of warning and reproof, which would have sounded
through all their subsequent history! And is it possible that the
sacred record can have regarded as utterly unimportant, an event
of such magnitude as this, and one that spoke so eloquently to
Israelites of future ages?  Or can we suppose that the spirit of
God, the spirit of prophecy, which directed even the writing of
Israel's history fronm a foresight of its future necessities, and which
knew that the subsequent history of Israel would continue to go
more and more astray into the foreign domain of purely political
action and reaction, and thus eventually cause its own destruction, passed over this splendid opportunity of engraving on the
very portal of Israel's history a fact so full of warning and instruction for future ages, and left it entirely unimproved?  In
what a different light, too, would this place the redemption of
Israel from Egypt by the strong arm of the Lord! What an
2




THE HYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.           395
opportunity would this have afforded, for setting forth what the
whole of the Old Testament history so constantly displays, the
mercy and fidelity of the caller, in spite of all the guilt, corruption, and disobedience of the called! How striking and comforting would have been the proof thus afforded at the outset of
the history, that however frequently the chosen people might
forsake the ways of God to tread their own ungodly ways, they
were never forsaken by Jehovah, but were always chastised with
the scourge of the Nemesis, that they might be brought back
with the cords of mercy.
From what we have said above, we feel that we are forced to the
conclusion, that if any such subjection of Egypt had taken place,
it would assuredly have been mentioned in the biblical record;
and as there is no reference to it there, that it can never have
occurred.  But not only does the record contain no notice of any
such occurrence; it evidently precludes it. For if the author
had been aware of the fact, and had passed it over in silence, he
would have been guilty of dishonesty and partiality, inasmuch
as so deceptive an omission would have indicated a desire on his
part, to transfer to the innocent Egyptians the charge of guilt,
which really belonged to his own people.  If Delitzsch's view be
correct, the Egyptians were fully justified in subjugating and
oppressing the Israelites. They were only practising the right
of retaliation.  The scriptural record, however, not merely takes
no notice of any such right; but, on the contrary, charges the
Egyptians with ingratitude and faithlessness (Ex. i. 8; cf. Deut.
xxvi. 6; Ps. cv. 25, &c.). According to Delitzsch, the Egyptian
oppression was a reaction against the previous ascendancy of the
Israelites; but according to the representations of the biblical
record, it was the rapid increase of the Israelites, which first led
the Egyptians to fear that they might obtain the ascendancy,
and induced them to anticipate any such event, and endeavour
to render it impossible by bringing Israel into bondage.
The biblical data adduced by Delitzsch in support of his
hypothesis are of little weight.  When it is stated in Ex. i. 7
that the Israelites had increased to such an extent that the land
had become full of them, this does not mean that " the people
had overspread the limits of their original dwelling place;" for
by the land, which was full of them, we are certainly to understand the latnd of Goshen, which had been assigned them. WThen




39!S                 Ja 9nAzing, 1Nt, I EG-Y y YPT.
Jacob's family (consisting of seventy souls) settled in the landl
of Goshen with a few thousand servants, they cannot possibly have
filled so large a province; but after a short time, they increased
so rapicily as to fill the whole of that land. And when again
the king says in chap. i. 9, " behold the people are more and
mightier than we," the purport of his words is such, that a little
exaggeration seems quite in character.  But even if we regard
them as literally true, there is nothing in them  to astonish us.
According to chap. i. 8, the period had just arrived when a new
dynasty arose, i.e. when the national dynasty threw off the yoke
of the Hylksos and recovered the supremacy.  It is true, the
warlike dynasty had been driven over the frontier and compelled
to leave the country.  But many of the Hyksos settlers had
undoubtedly been left behind; as we may gather from the Pentateuch itself, viz. from Ex. xii. 38 and Num. xiv. 4.  And
under these circumstances we may easily conceive, that the
number of the Israelites was greater than that of the national
Egyptians, who were then in power.  When we read in 1 Chr.
iv. 18 that an Israelite named ]iered married a daughter of
Pharaoh, named Bitjah (cf. ~ 15. 3), this does not favour
Detitzsch's hypothesis, but tends rather to disaprove it; for it
shows that the family of the Pharaohs and that of Jacob were
not the same.  And on the other hand, so long as the Hyksos
dynasty, which was so firiendly to the Israelites, held possession
of the throne, there is nothing inconceivable in the supposition,
that a distinguished Israelite may have married one of Pharaoh's
daughters.  Again the word r~nU in 1 Chr. vii. 18 is a
proper name, and therefore proves nothing. The military adventures, referred to in I Chr. iv. 22 and vii. 21 (cf. ~ 18), do
not affect the hypothesis of Deiitxsch, except so far as they
actually seem to prove, that it was possible for strong warlike
expeditions to be undertaken during the 430 years' sojourn
in Egypt, without any reference being made to them in the Pentateuch.  But, in the first place, neither of these events was of
so much importance in the history of the wo-rld, as even Delitzsch ascribes to the supposed conquest of Egypt by the Israelites; and secondly, the author of the Pentcateuch had no particular
inducement to mention the former incidents, whereas there are
a hundred places in the history of the Exodus in which the latter
nmlust have been called to mind. Andt we must also add, if the
2




THE H1YKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.         397
writer of the Chronicles had both an occasion and an inducement,
to notice and describe at length those comparatively unimportant
attacks upon Philistia and Moab; he must certainly have felt a
still stronger inducement to mention the much more magnificent
and eventful subjugation of Egypt, with which he must have been
quite as fully,if not more fully acquainted. In conclusion, we have
one more objection to offer to this hypothesis: namely, that whilst
at one time it raises the account of the Hyksos given by Jianetho,
into the position of a historical and trustworthy record, at another
it is obliged to declare, that in its most essential points it is at
variance with history. For according to the account contained in
the Pentateuch, the Israelites remained more than a hundred years
in Egypt after the rise of the new dynasty, and were so far from
being driven away, that every exertion was made to retain them.
And this discrepancy cannot be explained, on the supposition
of the distortion of the actual fate of the Hyksos government for
the purpose of pandering to the national vanity of the Egyptians.
For if the national dynasty no sooner recovered the supremacy,
than the Hyksos were humbled, enslaved, ill-treated, forced to
render tributary service, and prevented from leaving the country
as they desired, which the Pentateuch informs us that the Israelites were; there was undoubtedly much more to nourish and
flatter the pride and national vanity of the Egyptians, in such an
event as this, than in the supposed distortion of the facts of the
case, which we find in the account of Malnet7ho. No doubt the
representation contained in the Pentcateuch, in the history of the
eventual deliverance of Israel, has in it an element that is greatly
humiliating to the pride of the Egyptians.  But the second
extract from ]Jianetho, concerning the expulsion of the rebellious
lepers, shows that the national tradition of Egypt knew how to
distort in its own way the liberation of Israel, which was the
cause of its ruin, and yet at the same time to hand down the
account of Israel's slavery, which was flattering to Egyptian
pride.
(3). In order to overturn the credibility of Mlianetho, Hengstenberg in his " Egypt and the Books of Moses" (p. 236 sqq.), opposes the general opinion, that Manetho was the president of the
priesthood at Heliopolis, and that he wrote his Egyptian history
about the year 260 B.C., at the direction of the king, Ptolemy
Philadelphus, and employed the archives in the temple. On the




398                   ISRAEL IN EGYPTm'.
other hand, he endearours to prove that the supposed JManetho
was a "miserable subject, an intentional impostor, a confirmed
liar, and a professional wind-bag belonging to the period of the
Roman emperors."  This unparalleled assertion, which stands
in the most glaring contrast to the honour and esteem, in which the
author of the A4 egyptiaca has been generally held, by the ancients
as well as by critics and students of a later period, is supported by
arguments of so little value, that it is difficult to find words to
express our amazement.  Hefgnystenbeg  has studied the destructive critics of the Pentateuch to some purpose; he has
learned from them how to treat an ancient author, whose good
name is to be sacrificed at any cost in favour of certain preconceived opinions; in fact, so far as ifcanetho is concerned, he has
really surpassed the critics referred to. Listen, however, to the
chief arguments themselves: (1). " The supposed priest of
Heliopolis betrays a striking ignorance of Egyptian mythology,
and mixes up the names of Grecian and Egyptian gods in a
singular manner." The latter is no doubt correct; but it ceases
to be striking and singular, as soon as we understand the author's
method and design. MIancetlho wrote in Gree7, and therefore
wrote for Greeks.  In accordance with the syncretism prevalent
in his day, he combined and identified, so far as it was possible,
the names of the gods of Egypt and Greece; and just because
he was writing for Greeks, and wished to make his work intelligible to them, he even substituted the latter for the former.
He may certainly have been very unfortunate in these combinations and substitutions; but no one can call him either ignorant
or an impostor on that account. —(2). " Just as striking is his
ignorance of the geography of his own land, when, for example,
he places the Saitic  onomos to the ecast of the Bubastic arm of
the Nile (c. Apion i. 14)."  But may not the passage be corrupt?
The vrritypcTpa  of the work of MJaneth]o, which Jose phus employed, was already so corrupt or full of interpolations, that in
one the word Hyksos is interpreted shepherd-kings, whilst in
the other it is said to mean captive shepherds.  The conjecture
that the text is corrupt, is rendered the more probable by the
fact, that the reading in the Armenian translation is the Meth.raitic nomnos instead of the Saitic, though even the former reading
is probably spurious.  Bernardus has made the proper alteration
in the passage in question, and reads " the Sethroitic nomos."




THlE UYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.          399
The corruption was probably first occasioned by the circumstance,
that the first king of the I-Tyksos, whom Josephus calls Salatis,
was called Saoites in other manuscripts.  Julius Africanus appends to the name the following remark: cab' o5 Ka; O X. az'r0
VOA/ s EdCX?0j,.  If we regard Sai'tes as the original reading,
which it probably is (see note 4), an ignorant copyist might
easily be led to suppose that the city, which was built by Saites,
must also have been situated in the noomos, that was called by
his name. (3). " Pseudo-MIanetho betrays entire ignorance of the
Egyptian tongue, when he traces the first syllable of the word
Hyksos to the sacred dialect, and the second to the vulgar.  For
there is nowhere else the slightest trace of the co-existence of a
sacred and common dialect in Egypt. The author, in his
thorough ignorance of Egyptian affairs, confounds the distinction between the sacred and common dialect with that between
the sacred and common writing.  Moreover, some suspicion
is excited as to the author's acquaintance with the Egyptian
language by the fact that Hyk, which, according to one account means a king, and is said in the other to mean a prisonzer
(an important difference), does not really occur in either of these
senses."  To this we reply, that with our present limited
knowledge of the Egyptian language, the latter fact proves nothing. It is very unjust, however, that Hengstenberg should set
down this difference in the explanations of the word Hyksos to
llanethzo's account, since Josephus expressly says, that there
were various readings in the codices which he possessed, and
these must of course be traced to the copyists, and not to  lanetho
himself.  Lepsius, moreover, has, in my opinion, fully proved
that, at the time of Josephus, the genuine and complete work of
Manetho had ceased to exist (probably it perished with the destruction of the library at Alexandria), and that nothing was left
but the lists of the dynasties, and fragments of the history, contained in the other books. Again, to our mind, there is something truly astonishing in the statement that in Egypt there
never was any distinction between the sacred and common dialect.  For whilst the language of the monuments continued
essentially the same; in the course of time, particularly during
the Grecian rule, there grew up a marked distinction between
the old Egyptian and the new Egyptian or Coptic (i.e. between
the sacred and common speech) similar to that which we find in




4{)0                  ISRAEL IN EGYP'T.
other languages.  "Every sacred language," says Bunsen i. 310,
"is in reality nothing but the popular dialect of an earlier date,
which has been handed down in sacred books; e.g., the Hebrew,
in contrast with the so-called Chaldee; the ancient Greek in the
Greek church, by the side of modern Greek; Latin, in contrast
with the Roman dialects; and the early Sclavonic, in relation to
the modern Seclavonic languages."  The only question is, whether
in Jjlanet/o's time the popular dialect (viz., the Coptic) was so
distinct from the sacred language, or the language of the ancient
documents and monuments, that they could be regarded as two
different dialects.  Now this was decidedly the case. By means
of demotic MSS., we can trace the popular dialect to as early a
period as the Psarmmetichs (Bunsen ii. 14). There is no objection,
therefore, to the supposition, that the word Sos was still in existence in the popular dialect, though the work Hyk had already
disappeared, and lfanetho had merely to seek his explanation in
the various monuments and the documents in the temple.  Nor
is there anything very " serious" in the different explanations;
for an obsolete word might easily be proved to have different
significations.  In any case, the very fact that it is so difficult to
explain the word Hyksos, is an argument in favour of the age
and historical character of the name, and therefore also of the
persons represented by it.  If that " miserable subject," that
"s professional windbag " (as Hengstenberg styles the author of the
Aegyptiaca), had invented the name himself, he would certainly
have based it upon some etymology that was intelligible at the
time, or at any rate, to save himself from the appearance of
ignorance, he would have given it an explanation that could be
safely established.-(4). " In the work of JMianetho concerning
the period of the dog-star (Sothis), of which Georgios Syncellus
has preserved some fragments, the author mentions the source
from which his statements were taken, namely the accounts engraved by Thoth, the first Hermes, upon certain columns in the
Seriaclic land; they were written first in the sacred dialect, and
with sacred characters, but after the flood their substance was
translated into Greek and written in hieroglyphics by Agathodaemon, the son of the second Hermes, and the father of Tat,
and placed among the sacred treasures of the temple; as if it
could be necessary to make translations into Greek for the sake of
the priests even in the most remote antiquity."   But Henystcen



! uI mE xv'S:;S AND T'HE 1s:.EL!      iTE). 401
6er!g, who declares that both of the works are equally the bungling performances of an impostor whose very name is assumed, is
not warranted in drawing from the dishonesty of the one, eonilusonsiS prejudicial to the character of the other; for who can
assure him that two different authors mnay not have made use of
the venerable name of lIanethzo, for the purpose of helping their
wretched productions to pass?  Each of the two must be tested
by itself.  And the actual state of the case is this, that, whilst
the Aegyptiaca is regarded by all competent critics as authentic,
they are unanimous in pronouncing the book on. the dog-star a
forgery (cf. Bunsen i. 2356 sqq., Bicklh p. 15 sqq., Lep9sizts i.
413 sqq., &c.). -But, even assuming the genuineness of the
Sothis, the case is far from being so bad as Hengstenbery supposes.  Zokea makes the highly probable suggestion, that the
original reading in the Sothis may have been eis Tlv iKov/vV (instead of'EXNXv(6a) xovajv.  Some copyist, or perhaps the Syncellus himself, may, either from  a misapprehension or from
hurry, have substituted the Greek KcOLy;j for the common dialect
(KotLv1) of Egypt.  (cf. Bd'ckh, p. 16, and Lepsz'ius i. 413 Anm.
2).-(5). " The hatred and hostility to the Jews, which gave
rise to the second account of icanetho, had no existence before
the age of the Romaan emperors."  But why must it have been
this particular hostility which gave rise to the account?  The
disgrace and injury, which are said by the Penztateuch to have
been inflicted by the Israelites upon the whole of Egypt, were
surely enough to excite such bitter feelings in the minds of the
ancient Egyptians, that we can very well imagine them to have
lasted so long as to give rise to those ac8orT7row  Uv000voXyoo/veva,
which were preserved till ilanetho's days.-(6). " The statements
made by Manetho do not receive anything like that confirmation from  the monuments, which we should expect them  to
receive if JManetho were a trustworthy and honest enquirer."
This argunment leads to the very opposite conclusion, for, however great may be the differences, which we find on comparing
the data obtained from the monuments and other ancient documents, with those given by Manetho, so far as names and numbers are concerned; the instances of agreement are so numerous,
so strong, and so essential, that we are forced to the conclusion
that lManetho's work must have been the result of the most careful research.  The differences and discrepancies may certainly
VOL. IT.                                   2 c




402                 ISRAEL IN EGYP"T.
show, that his research sometimes led to misapprehensions and
erroneous conclusions; though even these may be satisfactorily
explained, either from the early loss of Mianetho's book, and the
faulty copies that were made of it, or from the arbitrary manner
in which it was used and revised by the chronographers.  The
most unfavourable opinion, which a moderate, and, at the same
time, keen criticism can express with regard to Manetho, is that
of Saalschiitz, who regards him as an honest, but somewhat
uncritical, compiler.
(4). HENGSTENBERG (p. 247) thinks that he has proved " TIAT
THE HYKSOS WAS NO OTHER THAN THE ISRAELITES; that the account of JMianetho is not founded upon any earlier native sources;
but, on the contrary, has merely sprung from a transformation of
the historical material preserved by the Jews, which is so altered
as to favour the national vanity of the Egyptians."  With this
Hofmann for the most part agrees; but he regards the transformation of the historical material, for the purpose of favouring the
national vanity of the Egyptians, as having taken place at an
early period in the history of Egypt, and therefore does not think
it necessary to indulge in such unmeasured abuse of Mlanetho, as
Hengstenberg. " The account of the Hyksos given by Manetho,"
says the latter, "presents such a striking resemblance to the
history of the Israelites contained in the Pentateuch, and on the
other hand, wherever it differs, is so evidently altered to favour
the Egyptians, that we can have no doubt as to the identity of
the Israelites and the Hyksos."  This assertion is made with so
much confidence, that we cannot abstain from a thorough and
searching examination of the arguments by which it is supported.
(1). " The Hyksos, like the Israelites, come from the East, and
particular stress is laid upon the fact that, like the Israelites, the
Hyksos were shepherds."  Were the Israelites, then, the only
shepherd-race in Asia? According to a tradition, quoted by
Manetho, the Hyksos were Arabs.  From  an intimation, given
by Herodotus (ii. 128), we might conjecture that they were
Philistians. A Moslemite tradition (cf. Abulfedae hist. anteislam. ed. Fleischer p. 178) might lead us to suppose that they
were Amalelcites. And how many other known and unknown
shepherd tribes were there in Asia at that time, who were strong
enough to attack the favoured land of Egypt with the hope of
conquering it?  What is there to force us to think only of the




THE HYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.           403
Israelites, who certainly came to Egypt without any such intention?  The fact that Joseph's brethren state to Pharaoh that
they are,t.:..  AWN (Gen. xlvi. 34), and that Pharaoh wishes to
appoint the best of them as,..r?. ~i', i.e., as keepers of his own
flocks (Gen. xlvii. 6), cannot certainly be regarded as a proof of
the identity of the Hyksos and the Israelites; although Delitzch
writes, as if these Hebrew expressions coincided with the name
~'TKrUo or 7Tote/zevE /ao-Aee.  WVe should be much more inclined
to discover an important resemblance in the words 7ro/thevES; Bo-av
aS6EXo& OotvuLceE S:EVOL /3aveEsl, with which EzEsebius, (in the
Chronicon), and the Syncellus introduce the seventeenth dynasty.
Delitzsch says: " Is not this a most striking description of the
brotherly tribe of Jacob, which immigrated from Canaan?" But
who can answer for it, that these are MIanetho's own words?
And they are worth nothing if they are not.  On the contrary,
when we consider that in his leading work Mlianetho expresses
no decided opinion with regard to the origin of the Hyksos, as
we may see from the extracts made by Josephus, it is very improbable that in the connected catalogue of dynasties he should
have described them with perfect confidence as Phcenicians.
Delitzsch also calls attention to the Semitic name of the Hyksos
city "A,8aptls, or city of the Hebrews, the north-easterly situation
of which corresponds with that of the land of Goshen. (Chainmpollion identifies this city with Heroopolis, Lepsius with Pelusium, i.e. Pelishtim, or city of the Philistines).  But neither
the situation nor the name proves anything in favour of the
identity of the Hyksos and the Israelites.  The name ab-..Y was
a very general one, descriptive of all the tribes whose original
home was on the other side of the Euphrates (cf. Vol. i. ~ 46. 4).
And this mayv have been the case with the Hyksos, without their
being identical with the Israelites.
The second argument is this: " The first king of the Hyksos,
who was elevated to this dignity from the midst of the people,
was named Salatis.  This unmistakeably Semitic name evidently sprang from G0en. xlii. 6, where we read that Joseph was
the regent (oitj;) over the land."  Hofmann (Zeitrechnung
p. 22) denies that there is any such connexion, since the name,
which we find in Africanus and Eusebius, is not &Salctis, but
2c2




4:04                   ISi{AETL   TiN' E.:PT'
SacdLes.  Delitzsch, however, is of opinion, that it cannot be disputed (Genesis p. 33o8, ed. 1).  oltfmaonn was quite right, as
we think, in giving up this argpulment; for the reading Salactis
is all the more suspicious, on account of its being so serviceable
to the purpose of Joselputs.  But even if this be the correct
reading, instead of supporting Hengstenberg's hypothesis, it completely upsets it.  For the name Salatis is either ancient and
historical, or it is modern.  If the former, then the Hyksos are
also historical; but if it be the latter, and therefore, like the whole
Hyksos fable, an invention of that "miserable subject," who assumed the name of Manetho, I would ask how this Hebrew
name found its way into the Egyptian legendary lore, or how
did Pseudo-Manetho get hold of it?  Hebrew he certainly did
not understand, nor is he likely to have read the Pe-ntateuch in
the original; and in the Septuagint, from  which alone any
acquaintance with Israelitish antiquities must have been obtained,
the word:t~i,~ is not retained, but rendered o apXopv rq, y/s.
Hengstenberg attaches still greater importance (3) to the
statement contained in ]Janefho's account that Salatis went every
year to Avaris at the time of harvest, Ta tE'v  tTO'o,C eTp&rV Kca}
s/0o-oqbopftav wrapeXyae7vos, v5 86 ia} rras - ~:orrXciaLs 7rpo'p'63ov
CTV  $B~OE~v &Ur_,aeXto  7uyvgvfD~rov.  Any one who reads the passage
in its connexion would render it: He came to Avaris every year
at the time of harvest, partly for the purpose of provisioniny the
place (as a border-fortress) and paying the garrison, and partly
to strike terror into the minds of foreigners by exercising his
troops.  But  lengstenbenrg makes it mean, " Salatis occupied
himself chiefly when there with measetring corn," and then calls
this a characteristic trait, in which it is impossible to mistake
the reference to Joseph.  Any Greek lexicon would tell him that
otTro1/ErpEtv means toprovision; and in the present instance, this
rendering is imperatively required by the context.
Henystenbery also says (4), "the account of the oppression
and harsh treatment, which the Egyptians suffered from Salatis
and his successors, has its historical foundation in Gen. xlvii. 20,
" and Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh," &c
The distortions, to which this fact has been subjected, may be
easily explained (?!!) from the endeavour to reverse the actual
relation of the Egyptians and the Israelites, and thus to transfer
the disgrace from the former to the latter. It was necessary




TIHE 1YKSOS 0 ANiD THE ISRAELIT'L'iES.    405
that the charge of unjust oppression and cruel treatment, which
the history attaches to the Egyptians, should be removed firom
them to the Israelites."  With reference to any such distortion
of the historical facts, to favour the national vanity of the ETyptians, all we can say is, that their national vanity must have
been of a very plecutliar kind, if this supposition be correct.
That would surely be a rare and unparalleled description of
national vanity, which would lead any one to represent his own
people as oppressed, enslaved, down-trodden, and ill-used by a
horde of men so despised as the Jews, when the very reverse had
been actually the case, and on the other band, to describe the
Jews as a brave and victorious tribe, who were the rulers and
oppressors of Egypt for several hundred years, whereas they
-were really timuid, despondent, subjugated, and enslaved! A
national vanity of this kind would be all the more rare and
inconceivable, since it is well known that the views which prevailed in ancient times, with reference to the rights of slaves and
helots, were not founded upon any very rigorous code of ethics.
rWe have here, however, an actual specimen, and a very lucid
one too, of the manner in which the national vanity of tile Egyptians perverted the relation of the Israelites to the Egyptians.
This specimnen we find in the second extract from Manetho,
which undoubtedly refers to the Israelites.  The people, for
whom the miracles wrought by their God had forcibly obtained
permission to depart, are there represented as lepers and persons  affected with the itch, as beggars and monsters, who were
banished and hunted away, every kind of indignity being heaped
upon them.
The most important argument in any case is (5) the one founded
upon the statement, that after the Hyksos were banished from
Egypt they went through the desert to Syria, and there built a
city, which they called Jerusalem, —" a feature," says Ilcenystenbeiry,
which ought in itself to be sufficient to convince our opponents
of the error of their way." Hiftnann (Studien Lund Kritiken, p.
409) also thought " the, name Jerusalem of greater importance
than all the rest."  But first of all we would request attention
to the fact that the Hyksos, who came from the countries vp o
ava',T6Xov, would naturally return to the East when they were
compelled to depart, and would also naturally go through the
lesert, probably towardlcls Syria.  Hence, neither of tlhesec elements




406                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT'.
is of any great importance. On the other hand, we must admit,
that the account of the founding of Jerusalem still remains a
most important point. Yet even this by no means proves the identity of the Hyksos and the Israelites; it simply proves (and this
is still more clearly shown by the second extract from Mlianetho)
that in the course of time the two legends, viz., that of the expulsion of the Hyksos, and that of the lepers, had been partially
mixed up together. Whether there was any historical ground
for this partial admixture, and if so, to what extent, are questions
that we shall discuss in the next section (~ 45. 4).
Such, then, are the arguments, with which the attempt has
been made to sustain the identity of the Hyksos and the Israelites;
and we have seen how weak they are.  Let us look now at the
positive proofs, which may be offered, that such an assumption is
inadmissible.  And, first of all, we will examine the question
from the standpcoint of the Pentateuch, the statements of which
we regard as indisputably historical.  If now we compare the
history of the Israelites, contained in the Pentateuch, with the
account of the Hyksos given by Mlantheo, it will soon appear
that they are entirely different the one from the other.  The
discrepancies so thoroughly pervade the whole, that they appear
in nearly every single feature, and in almost every word. If the
Hyksos-legend was invented, for the sake of giving such an account of Israel in Egypt as would suit Egyptian tastes; the author
has not introduced into his legion a single fibre of the historical
truth, as we have it given in the Pentateatch. If, however, there is
concealed in it a single element of historical truth, however small,
it is impossible to think of an identification of the Israelites and
the Hyksos. For in great things as well as small, in general
statements as well as special details, we find on both sides nothing
but mutually exclusive differences and contradictions.   The
Hyksos came in great numbers into Egypt; they came suddenly
and unexpectedly; they came as enemies and conquerors; they
murdered, plundered, devastated, and governed for five hundred
and eleven years; and then they were overcome and compelled
to depart. When the Israelites came, there were only seventy
of them, with two or three thousand servants at the most; they
first received permission to come; they came as suitors seeking
protection; they lived peacefully among the Egyptians, but after
a short time the latter oppressed, ill-treated, and enslaved them:




THE HYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.            407
they then begged and entreated for permission to depart, but all
in vain, &c.
Hofmnann (Studien und Kritiken, p. 408) tries to persuade us,
that we only need to forget a very little of the account of McLnetho, in order to convince ourselves that all the rest harmonises
very well with the history of the Israelites, as given in the Pentateuch.  "If," he says, " for a moment we overlook the fact, that
the Israelites did not enter Egypt by force of arms, and did not
conquer the land" (and, we may add, a few other trifles, e.g.,
the capture of the princes of the land, some of whom they slew,
making slaves of the rest with their wives and children; the
choice of a king from among themselves; his residing at Memphis; the fortification of the city of Avaris; the annual military
exercises; the names of the successors of Salatis; the eventual
appearance of a family belonging to the national dynasty; the
tedious war of liberty; the siege of Avaris; and other things
besides-if all this could be forgotten for a moment) " then the
rest applies to the Israelites very well."  And what is the rest?
To the Egyptians they certainty were avpeponro To'  yG'os?iar/yotl;
they had come to Egypt without a conflict; Avaris was situated
to the east of the Bubastic arm of the Nile, and that was also
the situation of Goshen; and the fortification of the eastern frontier we might find in the building of the two arsenals Pithom
and Raemses, though they were built by forced labour (this, of
course, it would also be necessary to forget).
We will now, secondly, take as our starting-point, the statemnents of MIanetho himself; that we may see whether we can thus
arrive at the conclusion, that the Hyksos and the Israelites were
the same.  In addition to the account of the Hyksos, lianetho
gives a description of the banishment of some leprous Egyptians,
whose leader and lawgiver is called AMoyses (~ 43. 2).  As it
cannot be questioned that this second account refers to the Israelites, who are described as banished Egyptian lepers, the two
accounts are regarded by all who identify the Hyksos with the
Israelites, as different versions of the same legend. But a comparison of the two will show that they are radically different;
so different that it is impossible to discover any common ground,
from which we may deduce the one primary legend that gave
rise to the others. One thing which renders it impossible to
establish any such connexion between the two accounts, is the




408                    ISRAEL IN EG YT'.
fact that the second presupposes the first, and evinces a perfect
consciousness of the difference between the Hyksos and the
lepers, since the former are called to the assistance of the latter
and unite with them.  According to Josephus, ilianetho places
the expulsion of the lepers 518 years later than that of the
Hyksos, and therefore must have been very far from  supposing
that they were identical.  It is true that, for his own part, he
has no great confidence in the credibility of the second account,
but he has introduced it in its chronological order into his his-,
torical work.  He must, therefore, have detected some historical
germ, which rendered it possible for him  to assign it a proper
chronological position in his history; and his doubts as to the
credibility of the narrative can only have had respect to its fanciful
and fabulous dress.  And the more his candid expressions of
doubt, as to the perfect credibility of the second account, prove him
to be a modest and sincere enquirer; the greater confidence shall
we be able to place, not merely in the historical character of the
first account, the trustworthiness of which he does not at all
suspect, but also in the results of his enquiry, namely, that the
two accounts refer to different persons, different events, and
different times.
In judging of the statements of Manetho, we must carefully
distinguish between the Israelites of the Pentateuch and the
Jews of his age.  It is only the former that are to be identified
with lMaizetho's lepers.  The Jews of later times he supposes to
have originated in a combination of the Hyksos amnd the lepers.
And we shall see presently that this view is not so thoroughlyunfounded and unhistorical as we might at the first glance be
led to suppose; but that, on the contrary, it receives a certain
measure of support from  a passing remark in the Pentateuch
itself (/f: ~ 45. 4).
~ 45. There is a threefold difference, in the opinions entertained
by those who agree that the Hyksos and Israelites were not the
same, with regard to the relation in which they stood to each
other.  Some refuse to admit that they were connected in any
way whatever, and assign the expulsion of the Hyksos to a
pplriod a.-lterior to the days of Ai)raham  a(.] J-osephl  This is




THE HYKSOS AND THE IStAELIITE'S.         409
thile conclusion at which Lepsius has arrived, chiefly as the result of chronological calculations (1).  According to another
view, of which Saeaschiitz is the representative, the new king,
who is said in Ex. i. 8 to have begun to oppress the Israelites,
was the first king of the Hyksos dynasty (2).  The third hypothesis, and the one which has met with the most general adoption in modern times, assumes that the Hyksos dynasty was in
power when the Israelites went into Egypt, that it was by this
dynasty that so much favour was shown, and that as soon as a
national dynasty recovered the supremacy (Ex. i. 8), the Israelites
were hated and oppressed as the friends and proteges of those
who had been expelled (3).  As an impartial examination of
Egyptological researches, with their arbitrary methods of procedure and contradictory results, necessarily leads us to the conclusion, that no reliable means have yet been discovered of
threading the labyrinth of Egyptian chronoloyy, and that it is
scarcely likely that any will be found; our safest plan will be to
compare and combine the actuca. data in our possession.  These
are to be found, on the one hand, in the Pentateuch history,
and on the other in the accounts given by JManetlho.  We are
both warranted and constrained to make such a combination, by
the general testimony of the earliest traditions and investigations
up to the time of J/acinetho, to the effect that the Hiyksos and
Israelites were conltemporaneous, and that there was some connexion between their histories.  And when we compare the two,
we find so much to support the third view referred to above,
that we feel no hesitation in adopting it as our own (4).
(1.) The general features of the view entertained by LEPSIUS
are the fJllowing: About the year 2100 B.C.,  during the period
of the twelfth (the second Theban) dynasty, the Hyksos, a warlike pastoral tribe of Semitic origin, entered Egypt from the
east, conquered the land without resistance, took possession of
i\e:aphi.s, aopticd it as -thelir own Capital,, and imposed tribute




410                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
upon the upper and lower parts of the land. About 430 years afterwards, (in the year 1661), the native kings, who had maintained their independence partly in Upper Egypt and partly in
Ethiopia, advanced from the south, and after a long (eighty years')
war succeeded in expelling the Hyksos from their last stronghold, Avaris (the Pelusiunml of later times), and drove them back
upon Syria, after they had been in Egypt 511 years. They nownumbered some hundreds of thousands, and had probably received
as much benefit from the culture they met with in this highly
cultivated land of art and science, as the latter had received of
obstruction and injury from them. Being expelled from Egypt,
they were obliged to seek a new home in Palestine.  This led to
fresh expulsions and emigrations, and probably issued in the division of the Hyksos and their dispersion in different directions.
The expulsion of the Hyksos took place under king Thummosis,
i.e., Thuthmosis III.  Almost two hundred years elapsed after
this, before the Israelites went down into Egypt; and both their
immigration and their departure, after a sojourn of hardly a
hundred years, occurred under the nineteenth dynasty.  Sethos
I. (1445-1394; called Sesostris by the Greeks), was the Pharaoh
who was on the throne when Joseph was brought into Egypt;
his son Ramnses II., Miamun the Great (1394-1328), was the
king at whose court Moses was educated; and his son llenephthes
(1328-1309), the Amenophis of Josephus, was the Pharaoh of
the exodus.  The exodus itself took place in the year 1314.The second account of lianetho refers to the Israelites.  The
statement that they were lepers was not an Egyptian calumny,
but a fact; leprosy being at that time a prevalent disease among
the Israelites in Egypt.  This is proved by the Mosaic laws
with reference to leprosy, and by the history of Miriam (Num.
xii. 14)!!
For the present, we will allow that the author is correct in his
assertion, that the three great Pharaohs reigned at the periods
assigned them. But he will never persuade us, to say nothing of
convincing us, that their reigns coincided with those periods in
the history of Israel to which he refers.  So long as any confidence is placed in the credibility of the Pentateuch and the Old
Testament history in general, the combinations which Lepsius
has made will be rejected as baseless and visionary; but they
will excite no less astonishment at the arbitrary nature of his
3




THE HYKSOS AND TH:IE ISRAELITES.         411
criticism, and the recklessness with which the sacred records are
handled, than at the extraordinary amount of learning and ingenuity displayed in the treatment of the subject.  In support
of his view Lelpsins says (Realencyclopiidie i. 145): " The
strongest confirmation is to be found in the fact, that there is
one circumstance mentioned in the Mosaic narrative itself, which
points in the most conclusive manner to the period to which we
have assigned it.  We refer to the building of the cities Pit'hom
and Raemses by the Jews, under the predecessor of the Pharaoh
of the exodus, and therefore under Ramses II.  We know from
other authorities, that this most powerful Pharaoh had many
canals cut and new cities built, and particularly that he projected
the canal connecting the Red Sea with the Nile, at the western
end of which was Pithomx and at the eastern Raemses (=AbuKeishid). Among the ruins of this city there is still to be seen
a group, consisting of two gods, with the deified Ramses II. on
a throne between them."   With regard to the last two circumstances, we refer the reader to ~ 41. 1, where we have
pointed out the impossibility of the identity of Abu-Keishid
and the ancient Raemses.  We here make the additional remark,
that as early as the time of Joseph there probably existed a city
named Raemses (~ 1. 5 and ~ 41. 2); and, though the city is
said to have been built either by or under a king Raemses, it is
impossible to see why this may not have taken place just as well
under an earlier king of that name.
Again, Lepsius lays great stress upon the fact, that in Ma,netho's second account Amrenophis is mentioned as the king wvho
expelled the lepers (i.e., the Israelites).  As this Amenophis
(Africanuzs reads Amenophthis) is described as the son of a
Ramses and the father of a Sethos, he cannot have been any
other than the Menephthes of the nineteenth dynasty, whose
father was Ramses II. and his son Sethos II.  At first sight
there is certainly something surprising in this coincidence. But
when we consider, that Manetho himself describes the whole
legend concerning the expulsion of the lepers as d8eO-7orTWr S  /vOoXoyov/tErVa, and reckons 518 years from the expulsion of the Hyksos to the reign of this king Amenophis, it is very natural to
suppose that he has made a mistake, in the position assigned to
this uncertain legend in the history that he took from the sacred
writings, and has placed it some centuries too late.  In the




412                   ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
eighteenth dynasty the name Amenophis (Amenophthis in Africanus) repeatedly occurs. We might be the mnore easilyled to think
of one of these kings, say of Anmenophis III., or the Great, whom
the Greeks called Memnnon, since he lived about fifteen hundred
years before Christ, and therefore at the period assigned to the
exodus in the biblical chronology (480 years before the erection of Solomon's temple).  lfanethzo, who was not acquainted
with the biblical data, from which he mlight have obtained a
safe criterion for fixing the true position of the exodus, could
very easily be led into such a mistake.
On these grounds, then, though professedly from the greatest
respect to the biblical records, the scriptural chronology and
history are cut down and mutilated in the most miserable and
arbitrary manner, to form a Procrustes' bed for the chronology of'
these three kings.  The author proposes the question " whether
the Old'Testament accounts contradict the Egyptian (i.e., as he
has explained the latter), in such a manner that the Egyptian
mlust necessarily be declared erroneous;" and to this he replies,
" on the contrary, the Egyptian history, which is of so definite
a character, apparently receives the most decided confirmation
from the Hebrew records, provided we assume that there is an
error in the reckoning of the interval between the exodus and
the building of the temple, which reckoning, at all events (?!),
was not introduced till a later age.  According to 1 Kings vi. 1
this interval was 480 years, a period which neither tallies with
the different numbers given in the Book of Judges, nor with the
Septuagint reading, nor with the reckoning of the author of the
Acts of the Apostles (chap. xiii. 20), and which was not even
regarded bS Joselphus himself as correct (Ant. viii. 3. 1; c.
Apion ii. 2).  In most of these cases the number of years is said
to have been still greater; but an unprejudiced (?!) exalmination
and comparison of the genealogical tables, of which the Levitical
deserves the greatest confidence, and a computation of the intervening  numbers, lead to the conclusion that the interval was considerably shorter, and the number obtained is just such as we
should expect, provided the Egyptian tradition with regard to
the epoch of the exodus be correct." —The Levitical genealogies
only mention three generations, from the time of the entrance
into Egiypt to that of the exodus (Levi, Kohath, Amrlam), and
onltry len or twelvre from. that noirioi  tno Zadok (the highl priest




Tile':fi IISO   ANi) TiTIHE I1:,RAELIT]'>S.  41 3
undler Solomon).  Now as Lepsius, quite arbitrarily and erro —
neously, gives only thirty years as the length of a generation;
the Israelites, according to his opinion, can only have been
ninety years in Egypt instead of 430, and the building of the
temple inust have taken place 300 years aiterwards instead of
480 (cd. Chronologie i. 367 sqq.).  And in the same way, since
the period which elapsed between the entrance of Abraham into
Canaan, and Jacob's going down to Egypt, only embraced three
generations, this cannot have been longer than ninety years.
To this we reply (1), that when the Old Testament speaks of a
generation, it means something very different from  modern
statistics, the Pentateuch, according to Gen. xv. 13-16 (cf. Ex.
i. 6), regarding it as embracing at least 100 years, instead of
thirty, during the patriarchal and Mosaic period (ef: ~ 14. 1);
-(2), that four generations, and not three, are mentioned as
included in the period of the Israelitish sojourn in Egypt (Levi,
Kohath, Amlram, and Aaron), for Aaron was eighty-three years
old at the time of the exodus;-(3), that during the same
period six generations are named in Joseph's fmily, seven in
Judah's, and as many as ten in Ephrainm's (cf. ~ 14. 1).  But
Lepsius cannot make use of such facts as these, and therefore
he declares that "they are evidently in a state of confusion, and
lead to no result," i.e., they do not square with our critic's premlises, and lead to a result which he does not like.  In our
opinion, however, these different accounts prove with indisputable certainty, what we repeatedly find on other occasions in
the biblical genealogies, that in some instances individual members are omitted, and in others several are linked together.  The
reason for such combinations we have already explained at ~
14. 1.
Again, Lepsius points to the fact that "the correct view"
(that is, his own), has been retained (?!) by the Rabbins.
For example, according to the Rabbinical chronology, which
was first invented by Hillel ha Nassi in the year 344 of the
Christian era, and gradually met with general adoption, the
exodus occurred in the year 2448, from the creation of the
world, that is in the year 1314 B.c., according to the Christian
mode of reckoning. The fact that this Jewish era was not heard
of till the fourth century, and moreover, that nearly all the data,
on which it is founded, are false, that is, at variance with the




414                   ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
calculations of Lepsius, does not affect the question —the year
1314 B.c. suits his purpose, and therefore the Rabbins have
retained the correct view! Now according to all the previous
calculations with reference to the biblical chronology, viz., that
of the Septuagint translators, of Josephus, of the chronological
tradition (which was followed by Stephen), and of the Christian
chronographers and others, 480 years wasfa~r too short a period for
the events which occurred between the exodus and the building
of the temple; and yet Lepsius finds in the same fact a support
for his opinion, that this period of 480 years was much too long
to be regarded as correct!!!
Hence, without further discussion, we must reject this reduction of the chronological data of the Bible from 430 and 480
years to 90 and 300; for the simple reason, that the history of
the period referred to does not admit of any such reduction.
We shall defer, to a later period, the proof that the same remark
also applies to the interval between the exodus and the building of the temple. But with regard to the earlier period, it is
so very conspicuous, that we can only wonder at the facility,
with which it could be ignored or set aside.  We will pass over
the fact, that if there is any chronological datum of the Old
Testament, which has all the probabilities in favour of its correctness, this is certainly the case with the history of the 430
years' sojourn in Egypt. Suffice it to say, that it would be difficult to persuade any one, that a family of seventy souls, with not
more than 2000 servants, increased to two millions in ninety
years.  Lepsius will probably meet this objection with the
favourite explanation of Ewzald and others, that Jacob, Joseph,
and his brethren are not to be regarded as the heads of single
families, but as the representatives of whole tribes. If so, let
him  candidly affirm  that the Pentateuch does not contain a
history, but an unhistorical myth, and then we shall no longer
have occasion to argue with him.  Besides, it is not merely the
single number 430, which has to be set aside. There are many
other numerical statements in the books of Genesis and Exodus,
which are most closely intertwined with the historical narrative,
and must also be explained away; and of these Herr Lepsius
will not be able to affirm that " they were at all events introduced at a later period." For example, according to Ex. vii. 7,
Moses was eighty years old when he first entered upon the con



THE HYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.           415
troversy with Pharaoh respecting the exodus.  Hence he must
have been born ten years after the Israelites went down to
Egypt.  How does this square with the other data contained in
Genesis and Exodus?  Joseph was seventeen years old, when he
was taken to Egypt (Gen. xxxvii. 2), and he died there at the
age of 1 10 years (Gen. 1. 22, 26), after he had seen the sons of
Ephraim  of the third generation (Gen. 1. 23).  Moreover,
Joseph was thirty years old when he was promoted by Pharaoh
(Gen. xli. 46).  Nine years afterwards his brethren came down
to Egypt (Gen. xlv. 6). Hence Joseph lived seventy-one years
after their entrance into the land.  Now we read in Ex. i. 6
seq.: " And Joseph died, and all his brethren, even all that
generation. And the children of Israel were fruitful and multiplied, and became very mighty, and the land was full of them."
And it was not till after this, that the oppression and tributary
service first began. But as these precautions did not suffice to
restrain the extraordinary increase of the people (and certainly
some decennia must have passed before this fact could be ascertained), the command was issued to murder all the new born
boys, and then Moses was born. Who can read this and come
to any other conclusion than that the period which elapsed between the entrance into Egypt and the birth of Moses, must have
embraced at least a couple of hundred years?  But according
to the chronology of Lepsius there are only ten years left for
the whole!-And how are we to understand the statement
in Ex. i. 8: " And there arose a new king, who did not know
Joseph?"  We have already seen at ~ 14. 4, that there is every
reason, both historical and philological, for regarding these wbrds
as the announcement of the rise of a new dynasty.  Still we shall
not insist upon this, as the arguments advanced there are certainly not absolutely conclusive. But with all the greater emphasis we enquire: how is it conceivable, that if Joseph filled a
post of such extraordinary importance under the Pharaoh Sethos
I., as even Lepsius admits that he did, his son and successor,
Ramses II., should have known nothing whatever about him?
What we have already said will surely suffice to convince any
one, who has the slightest confidence in the credibility of the
Pentateuch, that the boasted discovery of the Lepsius-criticism is
an untenable and baseless illusion, to which we can only exclaim,
transeat cum ceteris! Still there is one more utterance of the




4:16                  ISRAEL iN Es1YPT
critic, wiiclh is of so striking a nature, that it well deserves t(o
be mentionel.  In the R-leal-lexicon, p. 146, we read: " Thus it
was underthis king, the greatest of the nineteenth dynasty (Ramses
the Great), that Moses, the great man of God, was born; and
under hits successor, whom _Heroodotus (2. 111) mentions by the
name of Pheros (Pharaoh), and describes as a haughty and
wicked king who was punished with blindness on that account,
Moses led his people awcay and founded the first Jewish theocracy by the law which was given at Sinai; just as we find that
thirteen hundred years afterwards, when the revolution of the
world's history was complete, Christ was born under Augustus,
the greatest emperor of the Graeco-Roman world, and the second,
or Christian theocracy, was established by his death, under Tiberius, the Roman1 Pheros."-Does it not appear as though the
author wag desirous of conciliating and quieting the Christian
readers of the Real-encyue opdidie, whose sacred relic, the credibility of the Pentateuch, he had completely destroyed, and therefore offered them this historiosophical trinket, whlich he fancied
would suit their taste?-For our own part, though by no means
prejudiced against historiosophy, we nust certainly beg to be
excused from bartering so important a portion of the Bible and
of history, for any historiosophical idea, however great its attractions may be.
STAnRK (ut sup.) differs from Lepsius in this respect, that he
supposes the Hyksos to have been tribes of lower Egypt and
therefore of genuine Hamitic descent, who had been once before
in power as a Herakleopolitan dynasty, and who, after their expulsion, took possession of the coast immediately adjoining Egypt
under the name of Philistines.  Consult, on the other hand,
Lepsints (in the theol. Real-encycl. i. 149).
(2). SAALSCHihTZ, in the work referred to above, has set up the
clever and carefully developed hypothesis, that the new king,
with whom, according to Ex. i. 8, the oppressions of the Israelites commenced, was the first king of the Hyksos-dynasty,
that the destruction of Pharaoh in the Red Sea coincided with
the overthrow of that dynasty, and lastly, that the next (national)
king Sesosis (Sethos, Sesostris), who is described by Jose2phus as
EGeOOJv rp Ica', Pal-kco-7'v, was the same Ramesses, who is celebrated in the obelisk-inscription of Hermapion (cited by A/mmianeus Marcellinus) as: o's  efVXa:ev A'/yvVrrov oPsTOV~ aXXoeOvels




Tile' ItYKiSO"'S AND THE1 IRAELITIES.      417
tKqcroav and 7r-Xv)poa s t 7rvy ZEov TeoD  o0t1VKO? a(yaOJV.   The
armed supremacy of the Hykeos over a portion of Egypt lasted
about eighty-one years, for it probably commenced shortly after
the birth of Aaron, which took place before the conllmand to kill
the children had been issued. The second of ill-anetho's accounts is
supposed by Saalschiitz to be identical with the first (as everything
is done by the Hyksos in both cases), but both of them  are set
down as equally confused and incredible.-According to Saalschiitz (p. 9.5), the Hyksos were Philistines, or Gathites. In support of this he refers to 1 Chr. vii. 21, which passage he explains
in a totally different manner from  his former exposition (vid.
~ 18. 1).  According to his present interpretation the Gathites,
who were born in the land (i.e., on Egyptian territory), had come
down to Egypt to steal cattle, and it was on that occasion that
they were massacred by the Ephraimites (p. 96).-We cannot
subscribe to this view, for it neither appears to us to do justice
to Unlanctlko's first account, which we regard as essentially trustworthy, nor to be reconcileable with the statements of Scripture.
(3). Among the scholars of modern times, who suppose that
the Israelites entered Egypt during the Hyksos-period, the first
that we shall name is BUNSEN.  Whilst Eusebius and Georgius
Syncellus recognise only one Hyksos dynasty, which they call the
seventeenth, Julius Afrticanus speaks of three Hylksos-dynasties,
the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth, the first of which continued 284 years, the second 518, and the third 151.  Bunsen
adopts most fully the statement of Africanus, and maintains
that Josephus has arbitrarily selected the second number, 518
(511), and given that out as the sum  total of all the Hyksos
reigns, in order that he may be able to establish the identity of
the Israelites (with their 430 years) and the Hyksos (with their
not very different number of 511 years). After certain other
critical operations he arrives eventually at the result, that the
Hyksos supremacy lasted in all 929 years.  Into farther discussions respecting the origin and history of the Hyksos, or their
relation to the Israelites, he does not at present enter; but he so
far anticipates the result of future investigations as to pronounce
the Hyksos " Canaanitish tribes probably associated with Bedouins of northern Arabia." We must therefore wait for the rest,
before we can enter into a thorough examination of his views,
VOL. II.                                    2 D




418                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
EWALD (Gesch. i. 450 sqq.) describes the Hyksos as Hebrew
tribes, related to the Israelites, who had forced an entrance into
Egypt long before the Israelites wandered thither. Whilst he
succeeds, on such an assumption, in making it very intelligible,
why the Israelites met with so good a reception in Egypt, he resorts to fanciful conjurings in order to get rid of the difficulty,
that, at the time of Joseph's promotion, everything about the court
seems to have been of a thoroughly national, Egyptian character,
and that the proteges of the Hyksos, the Israelites, were not
banished along with their protectors by the returning national
dynasty.  For example, Joseph came to Egypt as the hero
and leader of a smaller Hebrew tribe, some centuries after
the more powerful tribe of the Hyksos, and at first under the
protection of the latter. But, after a time, some disagreement
probably arose between the tribe represented by Joseph and the
more powerful ruling tribe of the Hyksos, which caused the former much distress. The only reference which is made to this in
the book of Genesis is found in the account of the scene with
Potiphar's wife, and the consequent imprisonment of Joseph.
This led the smaller tribe of Joseph to attach itself to a native
Egyptian ruler, to whom it rendered assistance, when the Theban
and other kings of Egypt rose against the Hyksos; and, in particular, it made itself serviceable to Egypt by summoning the
other and more powerful portion of Israel, to assist in defending
the eastern boundary against any fresh invasion on the part of
the Hyksos. But as this danger gradually diminished, the presence of so warlike and well-armed a people, as Israel was, began
to be regarded by the Egyptians as in itself an evil. Hence the
friendly relation, which had previously existed, was disturbed;
collisions took place; the old hatred towards the Hyksos, who
had been banished some centuries before, was now directed towards the Israelites who were their relations; and Egyptian
kings at length commenced that oppression, of which we have a
description in the book of Exodus, and which eventually stirred
up the people to successful rebellion under the guidance of Moses
and Aaron. Moreover, notwithstanding the great alterations
which ages had made, the original bond of friendship between
the Israelites and the rest of the Hyksos was renewed, and hence
we find Moses entering into alliance with the princes of the
tribe of Midian, which formed a part of the numerous collection




THE HYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.          419
of tribes included in the term Hyksos, which also embraced the
Amalakites. Sic!
Far more simple and natural is the view, formerly taken by
Heeren, and more recently advocated by Bertheau, Lengerke,
Knobel, and others. They also regard the Hyksos as Hebrews
in a wider sense (Knobel in his Schrift tiber die V'l1kertafel calls
them Amalekites, Bertheau names them Terachites).  The national, Egyptian physiognomy, which was characteristic of the
court in Joseph's days, is accounted for on the supposition that
the victorious Hyksos had by that time adopted the culture,
the language, the customs, and the religion of the subjugated
national Egyptians.  The oppression of the Israelites they suppose to have commenced with the restoration of the national
dynasty, after the expulsion of the Hyksos.
(4). Our own view is essentially the same as that of Bertheau,
Lengerke, and Knobel. We should merely be inclined to substitute a different conjecture with regard to the origin of the
Hyksos. We cannot believe them to have been a Terahite
people, since according to the book of Genesis the formation and
organisation of the Terahite tribes (Vol. i. ~ 46. 6), belonged to the
time of Abraham3 Isaac, and Jacob, whereas the Hyksos must
have established their power in Egypt at a much earlier period.
We should be more disposed to fix upon the Amalekites; provided,
that is, they are not to be traced to Amalek, the Edomite mentioned in Gen. xxxvi. 16, but to be regarded, as Ewvald, Knobel,
and others suggest, as a much older Semitic race (cf. Vol. iii. ~ 4.2).
However, the positive arguments, which could be adduced in
support of this opinion, are not of much weight. Delitzsch
has lately pointed out with perfect justice, that we cannot attach
much value to the Moslemite testimony quoted by Abulfeda
(hist. anteisl. ed. Fleisch. p. 178), according to which the Pharaoh-s of the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, belonged to the
tribe of Amalika (see Delitzsch Genesis ii. 221); and the etymological attempt, to show that the meaning of the name
Amalek coincides with that of the name Hyksos (S Y or  -9 1 — 
small cattle, and Bin, king, from which by the hardening of the
n into p we get the name ~..~, kings of flocks, or shepherdkings) is not considered of much importance even by its originator, Saalschiitz (p. 95).  On the other hand there is great pro2D2




42()                 ISiAEL!rN E'YPT.',
bability, that the Hyksos were elther a Semitic tribe, or a tribe
with a Semitic language, partly because they came from  the
districts, in which the formation of the Semitic tribes originally
took place, and partly because the name of the city of Arvaris or
Abaris has undoubtedly a Semitic sound.  (The name of the
first Hyksos-king, Salatis, also called Silites, has less bearing
upon this question, since its primary form was probably Sai'tes,
c.f ~ 44. 3, 4).
In opposition to the notion,'that the Hyksos were a Semitic
tribe, though they were not Israelites," Delitzsch, (Gen. ii. 75)
urges the objection, from a scriptural point of view, that the
people of Egypt, who oppressed the Israelites, appear throughout
the whole of the Old Testament as a foreign nation, in no way
related to Israel; that the very reason why the house of Israel was
led into Egypt was that whilst growing into a nation, they might
be far removed froml the danger of in-termarrying; and therefore that the idea of relationship is complet-ely excluded.  However, we cannot see that there is any great force in either of
these objections.  For to the first it is sufficient to reply, that
the Egyptians, who oppressed Israel, were not the Hyksos, but
the national rulers who had once more recovered the supremacy.
And the second disappears quite as quickly, when we consider
that the relationship may have been nothing more than a common Semitic origin, and that, on the other hand, the Hyksos
had already adopted the speech, and manners, and religion of
Egypt, at the time when the Israelites found a welcome reception
there.
It is stated in Manetho's account, as given by Josephus, that
there were some who regarded the Ilyksos as Arabs, but the
opinion is not cited as of much worth.  According to EusebiUs and Georgius Syncellus, i7Aianetho himself appears to have
thought them Phoenicians.  And there are many who think,
that there is some indication of this in the account given by
Herodo-tus of the shepherd Philitis, who had led his sheep as
far as to Memphis; inasmuch as the Phoenicians and Philistines
were both included in the one common term Palestinians. But all
these statements are so fluctuating and uncertain, that we cannot
build much upon them. Yet when we add the fact, that after the
expulsion of the Hyksos, they withdrew to Judea (- Palestine), probably to the country from which they had originally




THEi HYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.           421
come, the opinion referred to becomes somewhat more plausible.
And if we enquire further, whether there were other known
migrations of any importance, in the pre-Abrahamic times,
which might have occasioned their departure from Palestine;
we are led' at once to think of the forcible expulsion of the
(Semitic) aborigines of Palestine by the Canaanitish tribes.
But as there are other reasons, which render it probable that
the immigration of the Canaanites into Palestine was of a
friendly character (Vol. i. ~ 45. 1), and, therefore, could hardly
have occasioned the departure of the original inhabitants, there
is very little to sustain such an opinion.
On the other hand, we may be allowed to call attention to
another feature of the case, which has hitherto received but
little notice.  ifac6netho, as quoted by Josep.7wts, says that the
Hylksos had strongly fortified the eastern boundary of Egypt,
for the purpose of secuiing themselves against any attack from
the Assyrians, who were at that time very powerful.  This
statement, to which commentators have not attached sufficient
importance, appears to me to be of very great value, in assisting
us to reply to the question now before us.  If the Hyksos had
such particular reason for fearing an invasion on the part of the
Assyrians, they must already have stood in a hostile relation to
each other, and on some previous occasion have been engaged
in acttual conflict.  It is probable, therefore, that the Hyksos
may have been dislodged from their possessions by the Assyrians;
and if this were the case, it would naturally lead them to fear,
that on the first favourable opportunity the latter would follow
them to their new settlements, for the purpose of completing
their subjugation.  Let it not be said in objection to this, that
it is improbable that the Hyksos, who had fled from the Assyrians, should be strong enough to conqauer Egypt, Awhich wvas
then in its prime;-for MAane'ho's account informs us that
Egypt was slumbering in peace and security, and submitted to
the foreigners without the slightest resistance.  Still this hypo-.
thesis can only be firmnly established by testimony from. other
quarters, to the fact that such warlike expeditions were actually
undertaken by the Assyrians, befobre the time of Abraham. And
the book of' Genesis appears to offer the testimony we want.
There is nothing at variance with Mcmanetlio's account in the
supposition, tIha-t at that t:ime the Assyrians were the possessors




422                  ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
of the cultivated lands on the Euphrates and Tigris.  And the
remarkable account contained in Gen. xiv., which all critics
aclknowledge to be trustworthy, indisputably proves, that before
the time of Abraham expeditions had issued thence for the purpose of conquest, and had proceeded westwards as far as to
Palestine. The rule of Chedorlaomer over the Pentapolis of
the vale of Siddim was probably all that remained of more
extensive conquests.  If we duly consider these memorable circumstances, in connexion with the statements made by Mcanetho;
the conjecture that the Hyksos were Canaanites,-either the
Semitic aborigines of Canaan, or immigrants into Canaan who
had adopted Semitic customs (Vol. i. ~ 45. 1, inaccurately termed
Phoenicians or Philistines, i.e., inhabitants of Palestine), but who
subsequently yielded to the invasion of the Assyrians and sought
out new settlements for themselves in Egypt,-may, perhaps, at
least, deserve a place by the side of so many other conjectures, which
certainly rest on no surer foundation. And there is the greater
probability in this, since, as will presently appear, the journey of
Abraham into Egypt (Gen. xii. 10) most likely took place but
a very short time after the Hyksos had established themselves
in the land.
But, whether we are correct in this conjecture or not, we must
in any case adhere most firmly to the conclusion, that the immigration of the Israelites occurred during the period of the Hyksos
supremacy, and that the restoration of the national dynasty was
followed by their oppression.  The objections to this conclusion (in Hengstenberg p. 160; Lepsius, Realencyclopadie i. 146;
Saalschiitz p. 56, and others), so far as they have any force,
may be reduced to two: viz., (1), that at the time of Jacob and
Joseph everything connected with the Egyptian court, language,
customs, culture, and religion, was of a thorougly national,
Egyptian character; and (2) that the Israelites were not banished along with the Hyksos when the national dynasty was restored, as we should expect them to have been if they were
their proteges and friends. Our first remark, in reply to this, is
that the two arguments cancel each other. For if the first be
correct, and in general it must be admitted that it is so, the
second necessarily loses its force. If, when the Israelites entered
the land, the Hyksos had so thoroughly adopted the language and
religion, the culture and the customs of Egypt, as the history




I'HE IIYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.          423
of Joseph shows that they had; this would suffice at the very
outset to establish such a wall of separation between the two, as
to prevent any closer amalgamation.  Moreover, the second
argument has all the less weight, seeing that the banishment of
the Hyksos was probably by no means universal, as we shall
presently show.
Undoubtedly there appears to be an irreconcilable difference
between the Hyksos rulers, as they are described in the extract
from Manetho preserved by Josephus, and the court life of Egypt
at the time of Jacob and Joseph, as it is represented in the book
of Genesis.  The Hyksos attack the national Egyptians with the
fiercest cruelty, destroy the national temples and sacred relics,
and maltreat the priests.  On the other hand, in Joseph's time,
the language and customs of Egypt prevailed at court; the king
took the title of Pharaoh like the national rulers; and his courtiers
had genuine Egyptian names (e. g. Potiphar); Joseph himself
received an Egyptian name; the peculiar worship of Egypt was
in filll bloom; the Egyptian priests were highly esteemed, their
privileges were recognised and illcreased, and the national dislike of the shepherd-life was undiminished. But, however glaring these differences may appear at first sight, they are by no
means irreconcilable, if we take into account the difference in
the periods referred to.  All that Manetho says with reference
to the cruelty, the harshness, and the spirit of destruction manifested by the Hyksos, applies merely to the time of the first invasion, and at most to the first six kings, whose names he gives.
Besides, we are warranted in assuming that Mcanetho, as an
Egyptian, or more probably still, the priestly sources to which he
went for information, indulged their hatred of the foreign rule,
by painting in the most glaring colours the injury inflicted upon
their native land. But even granting that the whole is literally
correct, it must still be admitted that the Hyksos cannot possibly have succeeded in completely exterminating the religion and
culture, the language and customs of Egypt; for any people, and
most of all, a people of such firmness and marked peculiarity as the
Egyptians, would keep fast hold of these possessions under the
pressure of the severest bondage.  And even MIanet7ho himself
attests that such was not the case, since he states that the Hyksos
subjugated the national rulers and made them tributary. This presupposes, as Bunsen (iii. 1 Ip. 33) correctly observes, that they not




424                 ISRAEL IN ER YPT.
only left them alive, but allowed them to live in conformity with
their previous habits. And if the customs of Egypt stood this first
shock, no other result was possible, than that its manners and
customs, which were most intimately related to its language and
religion, should slowly and gradually, yet certainly and inevitably, exert their silent influence upon the rude and uncultivated
conquerors.  What has so often been repeated since then, in
the history of the world, would be sure to occur in this instance; namely, that the barbarous conquerors of a cultivated
people would very soon be conquered! themselves, by the overwhelming mental power possessed by the nation they had
vanquished.  Thus did the barbarous conquerors of China adopt
its religion, its speech, and its customs; and thus also did the
Germrnanic tribes adopt those of the conquered provinces of Rome.
If, then, we reflect that at the time when the Israelites entered
Egypt, the Hyksos must have been some centuries in the land;
there is nothinog to astonish us in the fact that the language and
customs of Egypt prevailed in the court of the Hyksos, especially
as there are evident signs that these adopted manners were by
no means assinilated, but rather resembled a coating of varnish
that had been merely laid upon the surface.
When A brahacn took refuge in Egypt on account of a famine
(Gen. xii. 10 sqq.), the supremacy of the Hyksos had existed for
some time, as certain facts and chronological calculations most
clearly show. But at that time there was no trace of the hatred
of shepherds, so conspicuous in Joseph's days. The Pharaoh of
that day, as well as his court, did not hesitate to associate with
them even in public.  The king himself, who was desirous of
doing honour to the Nomad Emir (as his future brother-in-law),
sent him liberal presents of sheep, oxen, and asses, man-servants
and maid-serva.lts, slhe-asses and canmels.  Did that look like a
national ruler? was it not mulch more appropriate for a shepherd-lking? Two hundred years afterwards, when Joseph was
in Egypt, the physiognomy of the court was completely changed.
The language, culstoms, and religion of Egypt were then predominant at court; and a pastoral life was so far an offence, that
it was unseemly for a courtier, as well as for the national Egyptians, to eat with shepherds (Gen. xliii. 32).  But these were
merely matters of expediency, to which the king and the court
had seen fit to conform.  Circumstances were repeatedly occur



T'-E HYKSOS AND T'E IS[RAELITES.        425
ring, which proved that this was nothing more than an external
adoption of the customs and notions of the country.  That the
ruling Pharaoh could venture to naturalise Joseph, the foreigner,
the slave, and the shepherd's son, to place him in one of the
highest posts of honour, and to give him a wife from the most distinguished priestly family, was a thing so thoroughly opposed to
the national habits of the Egyptians, that we cannot conceive it
to have been possible in the case of a native king, and are almost
forced to assume the existence of a foreign and despotic government. Moreover, this Pharaoh was still the owner of large
herds of cattle, for which he selected herdsmen from the immigrant Israelites.  But such was the utter abhorrence in which
a shepherd life was held by the Egyptians, that the wealth of a
national ruler would have been much more likely to consist of
landed property than of herds of cattle. The Hyksos rulers,
however, most probably despised agriculture at first, just as
much as the Egyptians despised a pastoral life; and hence it is
very likely, that when they conquered Egypt they neglected to
reserve a sufficient quantity of arable land.  But the more
thoroughly they entered into the habits of the Egyptians, the
more sensible must they have become of the disadvantage under
which they laboured, and Joseph very properly thought of providing a remedy (Gen. xlvii.). Just as irreconcilable with the
idea of a native government, is the unhesitating readiness with
which a pastoral tribe, like that of the Israelites, was welcomed
into the land; especially if the Hyksos period was already past,
as Lepsius believes. For in this case the recollection of the
sufferings of that period would have been most vivid, the hatred
of shepherds would have been at its height, and the danger of an
offensive alliance between the immigrants and the banished
Hyksos or other pastoral tribes of the East would immediately
suggest itself. And yet these are the circumstances under which
the Israelites are supposed to have been welcome (!), the best
provinces being allotted to them, and even the gates and keys
of the whole country being placed in their hands!  Joseph
advised his brethren to tell Pharaoh, without hesitation, that
they were nomads: a poor recommendation, one would think,
in the estimation of a national ruler.  The aged patriarch, Jacob,
took upon himself to bless the Egyptian ling; —would a native
ruler, with his national pride and his detestation of shepherds,




426                 ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
have allowed such a thing to be offered to him by a despised
shepherd-chieftain? And when Jacob died, the whole of the
court and the elders of the land of Egypt formed a funeral procession, with chariots and horsemen, in honour of the unclean
shepherd.-chief, who was notwithstanding an abomination in
their eyes!  According to 1 Chr. iv. 18, one of Pharaoh's
daughters, named Bitjah, was married to Mered, an Israelite.
How is this conceivable, if the reigning house at that time had
ceased to have any sympathy with shepherds?
Some centuries had elapsed since Joseph's time, when a new
king arose, who knew nothing of Joseph (Ex. i. 8, cf. ~ 14. 4).
The Hyksos had been banished, a native ruler (of the eighteenth
dynasty) had recovered the throne, which had for centuries been
occupied by usurpers.   How intelligible and natural, that
such a ruler should know nothing of Joseph, or rather should
not wish to know anything of him! If the previous dynasty
owed the maintenance of its supremacy to the wise measures
devised by Joseph, and if the immigration of the Israelites, a
people connected with them by their similar mode of life, and
possibly also by descent, was a welcome event to them, the very
opposite must have been the case with the new and native
dynasty. From the very outset the Israelites, both as a pastoral
race and also as the friends and proteges of the Hyksos, must
have been an object of hatred and disgust.  Moreover, this
shepherd-race had grown to be a numerous people, probably
even more numerous than the national Egyptians, who had just
recovered their freedom and their independence; and they dwelt
in that part of the land in which their presence would be most
dangerous, if it should ever occur to them to enter into alliance
with the enemies of Egypt outside (Ex. i. 10).  How natural
that the new dynasty should seek to oppress, to weaken, and to
enslave a people which was so dangerous in its estimation! The
Israelites were forced to render tributary service; they had to
make bricks, and build fortresses. How thoroughly does this
suit the character of the eighteenth dynasty! The Hyksos had
destroyed so many ancient monuments, that the fresh dynasty
determined to renew these objects of Egypt's pride; and it was
actually under this dynasty, that the greatest number of buildings
and the most magnificent were erected. Josephus says in his
Antiquities that the Israelites were compelled to work at thile




THE HYKSOS AND THE ISRAELITES.           427
pyramids.  Whether this is founded upon historical tradition,
or is an idea of his own; in any case, it is a conjecture which has
every probability in its favour. The friends and proteges of the
destroyers were compelled to restore what their protectors had
demolished.
But why, it is asked, did not the national dynasty expel the
Israelites at once along with the Hyksos, if their presence in the
land was thought so dangerous and threatening? The answer
to this question is so simple, that we can hardly understand how
it could ever have been asked.  The second book of the Pentateuch furnishes us with the reply. The policy of the Pharaohs
rendered it more advisable to enslave the Israelites, and, by
forcing them to perform tributary service, to render them harmless, than to drive away so many thousand men, who were
actually needed for the accomplishment of their designs. In
a state like Egypt (when governed by native rulers, and especially
under the eighteenth dynasty), where the greatest glory was sought
in the erection of colossal monuments, which must have required
hundreds of thousands of hands; nothing could be more desirable,
than to have a large population of helots in the land, who could
without difficulty be forced to perform the hardest tasks. Herodotns (i. 108) and Diodorus Siculus (i. 56) both show how important this was to the Egyptian rulers. According to the former
the great conqueror Sesostris brought back large crowds of people
from the conquered lands, who were destined to render this hard
tributary service; and the latter states that the same king (i.e.
Sesoosis) did not employ a single Egyptian in the execution of
his designs, but that the whole was performed by captives alone.
HIence the inscription on all the temples: " no native has been
employed in its erection."
Before leaving this subject, we must return once more to
JIlanetho's accounts. Both of them contain some particulars,
which need a somewhat closer examination. The first announces
that the banished Hyksos went through the desert to Syria,
settled in Judea, and built JERUSALEM.  IS this statement historical or fictitious?  What events had occured in Palestine,
during the interval between the departure of the Israelites and
the time of Moses, we cannot tell. Hence we are not in position
to deny, without further investigation, that there was any historical foundation for this statement. If the Hyksos left Canaan




428                   ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
on account of the Assyrian invasion, as we have already shown
to be very probable; it is also probable, that when they were
expelled from Egypt, they would first turn their steps in the
same direction again. Whether they reniained there, and settled
in Judea, as ilianetho's account affirms, or whether they were
unable to find any settled abode in Canaan, and therefore wandered further and were lost among the tribes beyond the Jordan,
the biblical history does not enable us to determine.  We are
not even in a position to reject altogether the statement that
they built Jerusalem.  In the time of the patriarchs, Jerusalem
was merely called Salem (Vol. i. ~ 55. 1). In Joshua's days, and as
late as the reign of David, the name of the city was Jebus; and it
was not till David had conquered it, that it was called Jerusalem.
This change of names is striking enough; and it is very possible,
especially as Jebus was actually the name of a tribe, (Judges
xix. 10, 11), that the Hyksos (or Jebusites) may have conquered
Salem after their expulsion from Egypt, and called it by the
name which formerly distinguished their tribe.  On such a
supposition, too, we might possibly obtain some clue to the
striking fact, that the city was never completely taken by the
Israelites till David's reign. Still we are more inclined to believe,
that there is some error or confusion of names in Manetho's
account, the cause of which is to be traced to a recollection of
the close connexion which existed between the Israelites and the
Hyksos.
To this conclusion we are more particularly led by the second
of M-Ianetho's statements, according to which the leprous Egyptians (or Israelites), led on by Osarsiphll or MIoyses, called the
shepherds of Jerusalem to their assistance, and in alliance with
them  inflicted fresh calamities of every description upon the
Egyptians.  With regard to the latter, no one can overlook the
fact that we have here an account of the plagues, though it is
greatly altered to suit the interest of Egypt. And even the sup-.
posed alliance between the lepers and. the Hyksos is not altogether imaginary.  For we learn from  the Pentateuch, that a
number of common peo21le joined the Israelites when they went
away (~ 35. 7). Now as the Israelites allowed these Egyptian
Pariahs to accompany them, they must have been closely connected with them; so fiar at least as to have suffered the same
constraint and oppression.  fence oulr conjecture is that we have




TrHE HYKSOS AND1) THE ISRAELITES.       429
here the remains of the banished Hyksos.  It is true that Mlanetho's first account says nothing about any of the Hyksos being
left behind. But it is certainly not improbable that this was
the case. All that the national dynasty wanted to do, was to
overthrow the despotic rule of the Hyksos.  For this it was
sufficient to expel the king with his officers and soldiers.  But
it was far from being to the interest of tile new dynsasty to expel
the Hyksos settlers, who were engaged in agriculture or rearing
cattle, and had taken no direct part in the war; on the contrary they
would be more disposed to do all they could to retain those from
whom they had nothing to fear, that they might use them as
slaves and helots.  Common sufferings would then strengthen
and knit more closely the connexion, which originally existed
between the Israelites and the Hyksos; and we can very well
imagine that the latter would eagerly avail themselves of the
opportunity of attaching themselves to their fellow sufferers, who
were about to depart, and thus escaping the oppressive yoke of
the national Egyptians. And if the Egyptians continued to bear
in mind the fact, that the Israelites and the Hyksos had left the
country together; the traditions of a later age might easily confuse the whole affair, as Jfltnetho's accounts have evidently done.
The two fixed points, which had been handed down, were these:
that the Hyksos had been banished long before the exodus of
the Israelites, and also that numbers of the Hyksos had afterwards left the country along with the Israelites.  But to those
who lived at a later age, these two statements would appear to
disagree, and either in the legends which existed before the time
of Manetho, or by Mcanetho himself, they may have been reconciled and combined on the simple assumption, that Moses recalled
the Hyksos, who had been previously expelled.
END OF VOL. II.