The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia

by Theophilus G. Pinches

Salem.

One of the most interesting points revealed by the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, is the fact that the name of Jerusalem occurs, and is not called simply Salem (as in Gen. xiv. 18), but Uru-salim, the Aramaic (Syriac) Uri-shalem, a form which confirms the translation given to it, namely, “city of peace,” though the writing of the word in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets suggests the suppression of the particle “of,” making “the city Peace” simply, which would, perhaps, be to a certain extent a counterpart to or an explanation of the form Salem, “Peace,” in Genesis.

There is no doubt that the name is an exceedingly interesting one. Prof. Sayce has suggested that there was a god named Salem, or “Peace,” and that the city was so called as being the abode of that deity. This, of course, is by no means improbable, but in no place where the name occurs—neither in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets nor in the historical inscriptions of Sennacherib—has the element salim (in Sennacherib's texts salimmu) the divine prefix before it. That the divine prefix should be omitted in the inscriptions of Sennacherib is easily understood, as the name in question would be a foreign one to the Assyrian scribes of his time. To the writers of the letters from Jerusalem, however, it was a native name, and one would certainly expect the name of the city, in such documents, to be given fully at least once.

Nevertheless, that there was a god of peace among the Semites, is proved by the name of the Assyrian god Šulmanu or Shalman, a component part of the name Shalmaneser, the Assyrian Šulmanu-ašarid. It is noteworthy that there were no less than four Assyrian kings of this name, and that it means “the god Shalman is chief.” Šulmanu or Šalmanu nunu, “Shalman the fish,” also occurs, as the name of one [pg 240] of the gods of the city Tedi, or, as Prof. Sayce reads it, Dimmen-Silim (better Temmena-silima), but this latter reading would only be the correct one if the characters Tedi are to be read as an Akkadian group.

It is therefore very doubtful whether the element salim in the name of Jerusalem be the name of a god, notwithstanding the love that the peoples of the Semitic East naturally had for the blessings which the word implies. It formed part, as in Arabic at the present day, of many a greeting, and is one of the most noteworthy points of the Semitic languages. A poetic composition, apparently of the time of the dynasty of Babylon—probably contemporaneous with Abraham—seems to read as follows—

Mazzazam išu,	It has the resting-place,
Padanam išu—	It has the roadway,
Bab êkalli šalim;	The gate of the palace is sound—
Šulmu parku šakin.	Perfect (?) soundness exists;
Martum šalmât	The gall is sound,
Ubanum šalmât	The peak is sound,
Ḫašû (?) u libbu (?) šalmu	Entrails and heart are sound—
Sinšerit tiranu.	12 (are) the coverings (?).

Tertum immer izzim	(If) the viscera (?) of a healthy sheep (?)
Šalmât	Be sound,
Mimma la tanakkud.	Naught shalt thou fear.

The above probably represents the signs which the extispices or “entrails-inspectors” looked for when working out their forecasts. A better translation than “peace” for salim would therefore probably be “safe and sound,” “intact,” or something similar (see the 13th edition of Gesenius's Lexicon, edited by Prof. F. Buhl, with the collaboration of Socin and Zimmern, also Fried. Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handwörterbuch), but the old and more poetic expression “peace,” “to be at peace,” may be held to sufficiently express the meaning.

With regard to the first element of the name Jerusalem, Uru-salim in Assyrian, that is to all appearance the Sumero-Akkadian uru (from an older guru), “city,” in the dialect eri, from which the Hebrew 'ir, “city,” has to all appearance come. The vowel-change from u to e or i is shown in tu, dialectic te, “dove”; uru, dial. eri, “servant”; duga, dial. ṣiba, “good,” etc. As is usual with two nationalities dwelling at no great distance from each other, borrowings of words took place between the Semites on the one hand and the Sumero-Akkadians on the other, which have left traces on the vocabularies of both.

[pg 242]

---

Chapter VII. Isaac, Jacob, And Joseph.

Jacob, Yakub, and Yakub-ilu—Joseph, Yasup, and Yasup-ilu—Other similar names—The Egyptian monuments and the Semites.

With the disappearance of Abraham from the scene of his earthly wanderings, a prominent figure connecting Babylonia with Palestine vanishes from history. His son Isaac and his grandson Jacob retain, however, their connection with those of the family who resided at Haran, taking their wives from among their relatives there—Isaac because his father wished it, Jacob because the souls of his father and mother were vexed on account of the daughters of Heth whom Esau, Jacob's brother, had married. In this primitive story of three generations of a primitive family there is much to interest the student of ancient west Semitic manners and customs—the love of Isaac for Esau, because Isaac loved the savoury venison which the former provided for him; how Jacob, “the supplanter,” obtained his brother's birthright and the blessing which he ought to have had; Laban's covetousness and duplicity—all these things furnish material for the student of manners and customs and of human nature, but very little for the comparative archæologist who wishes to find connections between Abraham's descendants and the country which gave their father (or their grandfather) birth. Nevertheless there are points which deserve illustration.

To all appearance the manners and customs of the families of the patriarchs had not changed since they came out of Babylonia. There is the same pastoral life, the same dislike (and probably mistrust) of strangers and foreigners, the same freedom on the part of the men, even the most honoured among them, with regard to the marriage-tie, the same tendency to add to this world's goods, and to become great and mighty chiefs in the land (would that Jacob had done this otherwise), as at first. The Babylonian spirit of commerce and the desire for “supplanting” was well developed in the father of the twelve tribes, and may be regarded as adding, as far as it goes, to the confirmation of the theory (but the question is more one of fact than of theory) that Abraham was of Babylonian race.

Exceedingly interesting are all the names borne by the patriarchs, and the reasons why they were given to them. Indeed, the punning references to circumstances concerning their birth are similar in their character to those of the patriarchs before the Flood. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that many of the names found in this part of the sacred narrative are not by any means unique. Thus the name of Jacob occurs many times in the tablets of the period of the first dynasty of Babylon under the forms of Yakubu, Yakubi, etc., and there are also forms with the word îlu attached—Ya'kubi-îlu, Yakub-îlu, etc. In like wise we find what is apparently the same name as that of Joseph, namely, Yašupum with its longer form Yašup-îlu, types of many others, such as Yakudum, Yakunam, etc., Yabnik-îlu, Yagab-îlu son of Yakub-îlu, etc. As far as I have at present been able to find out, however, none of the names of this class, except Yakub-îlu and Yašup-îlu, have as yet been discovered in both forms (i.e. with and without the element îlu), which may turn out to be of importance, or may be simply a remarkable coincidence.

This, naturally, leads to the question: What are the meanings of these names? According to Genesis, Jacob means supplanter, or, rather, “he has supplanted,” and the further query then arises: What does the name mean when îlu is added to it? The meaning in this case ought to be “God has supplanted,” which clearly will not fit.

The best explanation probably is, that the name of Jacob was never Ya´kub-ilu, but Ya´kub simply, meaning, “he has supplanted,” and referring, naturally, to the person who bore the name. As the name “Supplanter” is not one which a man would be proud to bear, in all probability it was seen that it would be taken for the usual abbreviation for Ya´kub-îlu, with the probable meaning of “God hath restrained” (another signification of the root ´aqab), and thus it may be that there is no record of any one having reproached him on account of it, except the members of his own family, who knew why it was given to him, and recognized in his character as a man something which corresponded with the name given to him because of what was said to have happened at his birth.

Notwithstanding the two etymologies of the name of Joseph which are given (Gen. xxx. 23, 24), “He (God) hath taken away,” and “He (God) hath added,” there is but little doubt that the latter rendering is the correct one, agreeing, as it does, better with the root yāsaph, from which it is derived, the other rendering, from the root āsaph, “to take away,” being due to a kind of pun. (The former rendering is explained as being from the Elohist narrative, the other from that of the Jehovist, but it seems not at all improbable that a woman, even a Canaanitess of those primitive ages, should have made a joke sometimes—they seem always to have been given to making strange comparisons with regard to words, and even the ancient Babylonians were not free from that failing, as at least one of the bilingual tablets shows.) The meaning of the [pg 245] name Joseph is therefore “He (God) hath added,” corresponding with that of the Yašup-îlu, “God hath added,” of the tablets of the time of the dynasty of Babylon. The use of š for s must be due to the fact that Yašup-îlu was, for the Babylonians, a foreign name, and that, in Assyro-Babylonian, šin was pronounced like samech and samech like šin, as a general rule.

Besides the names of the patriarchs Jacob and Joseph, the name Sar-îli, “prince of God,” suggests a comparison with Israel, which is written Sir´ilâa, “Israelites,” in the time of Shalmaneser II. The meaning attributed to this name would seem to be somewhat strained, as it would signify rather “God hath striven,” than “he hath striven with God.” That word-play exists also here, and that the name was a changed form of Sar-îli, “prince of God,” is possible, and is at least justified as a suggestion by the form recorded by Shalmaneser II. already referred to.

The name of his brother Esau may possibly exist in the Babylonian Esê, found on a tablet dated in the reign of Samsu-iluna. Laban does not occur, except as the name of a god in a list of deities worshipped in the city of Aššur. With regard to Bethuel, one cannot help thinking that it must be the same as the place-name Bethel, the terminal u of the nominative being retained in the name of Abraham's nephew. If this be the case, he may have been so named after the “Bethel of cedar” (see p. [201]), though there is just the possibility that, as Gesenius suggests, Bethuel may be for Methuel, the Babylonian Mut-îli, “man of god.” That the Bethel of Haran was a heathen place of worship, however, can hardly be regarded as any objection to one of the family to which Abraham and his descendants belonged bearing such a name. If the Hebrew text be correct, therefore, it is probably an abbreviation, forming part of a name similar to [pg 246] Ê-sagila-zērâ-êpuš, “Ê-sagila (the temple of Belus at Babylon) has created a name,” and others like it. It is also to be noted, that the name given by Leah to the son which Zilpah her handmaid bore to Jacob after she herself left off bearing was Gad, rendered in the Hebrew itself by “Fortunate,” and probably the name of a west Semitic deity, Gad, the god of good fortune.

But the heathenism of the portion of the family living at or near Haran is clearly proved by the matter of the teraphim, which Rachel stole from her father Laban. It is true that they are generally regarded as figures used for the purpose of magic, but as Laban himself calls them his “gods,” there is every probability that they were worshipped as such. It is to be regarded as simply an indication of the difficulty which most dwellers in the midst of polytheism in those days must have found in dissociating themselves from the practices of those with whom they came daily into contact. They may have had all the tendencies possible towards monotheism, but how were they to embrace it in all its perfection in the midst of a population recounting from time to time the many wonderful things which their gods and protecting genii did for them, and which the hearer had no opportunity of probing to the bottom and estimating at their true value? As these people were, to all appearance, but simple shepherds (though sufficiently wealthy), it is hardly to be expected of them that they would go deeply into philosophical considerations concerning the Deity, especially when we remember that the family of Laban was in close contact with the idolatry of Haran.

With regard to the teraphim which Rachel took with her when Jacob fled from her father, there is not much that can be said. Figures so called were in common use among the Jews and other nations for purposes of magic, and to all appearance they were [pg 247] statues of deities (as indicated in the passage now under consideration) which were consulted by some means when anything of importance was about to be undertaken. To all appearance they were the household gods, like the Lares and Penates of the Romans, though they were also used when on expeditions, as when Nebuchadnezzar is represented (Ezekiel xxi. 21-26 in the Heb.) standing at the parting of the ways to use divination, shaking arrows to and fro, consulting the teraphim, and looking at a liver to decide what his success in the operations which he was about to undertake against Jerusalem would be. In Zechariah x. 2 also, there is a reference to the teraphim, which, as oracles, had “spoken vanity,” and the diviners had “seen a lie.” Little doubt exists, therefore, as to what these things were used for. With regard to their form, it is supposed that they were similar to the small figures found in the ruins of the ancient palaces of Assyria, generally under the pavement, in all probability images of the gods of Assyria who, by their effigies, were supposed to protect the palace and its inhabitants. Some of these are four-winged figures similar to those found on the bas-reliefs, whilst others are representations of a deity, probably the god Êa or Aê, the god of the sea, who is represented clothed with a fish's skin, etc. The size of these teraphim must have differed greatly; that which was placed in David's bed by Michal, his wife, to deceive Saul's messengers, must necessarily have been of considerable height—probably not much under that of a man. Those hidden by Rachel when her father came to look for them, however, must have been comparatively small, and the figures found in the foundations of the Assyrian palaces rarely measure more than six inches in height.

In the light of what this incident of the teraphim reveals, it is not to be wondered at that Jacob, when about to go up to Bethel from Shechem, after the [pg 248] treacherous spoiling of the city by his sons, should have said, “Put away the strange gods that are among you,” and it shows also a considerable amount of tolerance on the part of the patriarch. Did he, too, believe that the gods which his relatives and dependents worshipped were in any sense divine beings? In any case, it is to be noted that, after they were given to him, he did not destroy them, but hid them, with the trinkets which they possessed—in all probability in many cases heathen emblems—under the terebinth-tree which was by Shechem.

To all appearance they were allowed to keep these strange gods and heathen emblems until they set out on the journey to make the commanded sacrifices to the God who had revealed Himself to Jacob at Bethel.

It was after this sacrifice at Bethel that God again revealed Himself as El-shaddai, His name in the text of “the priestly narrator” (Gen. xvii. 1), and in many other passages. The word Shaddai here is generally connected with the root shadād, “to act powerfully,” and the translation “God Almighty” is based on this. As the word is a very difficult one, however, there have been many attempts to find a more satisfactory etymology. It is to be noted, therefore, that there is in Semitic Babylonian a word šadû, often applied to deities, and expressed, in the old language of Akkad, by means of the same ideograph (KURA) as is used for mountain (šadû or šaddû in Semitic Babylonian). This word šadû, applied to divinities, Prof. Fried. Delitzsch regards as being distinct from the word for mountain, notwithstanding that they are both expressed by the same word in Akkadian, and renders it by the words “lord,” “commander.”

Have we, in this word, an Assyro-Babylonian form of the Hebrew Shaddai? We do not know, but the likeness between the two is worth referring to. The god Bêl, for example, is called šadû rabû, “the great [pg 249] mighty one,” and Sin, with other deities, bears a similar title, found in such names as Sin-šadûnu, “the Moon-god is our lord.” That the idea of almightiness should be expressed by means of the borrowed Akkadian idiomatic use of the word KURA, “mountain,” as that which towers up commandingly, a mighty mass, would seem to offer an acceptable explanation of what has long been felt as a difficulty. “But God knows best.”

After a long and noteworthy account of Esau and his descendants, the interest of the narrative shifts, and is transferred to Joseph, the youngest but one of Jacob's twelve sons, though the narrative is for a time interrupted by the story of Judah.

With the transfer of the interest of the narrative to Joseph, Egypt, the country into which he was sold as a slave, becomes the scene of the action. Here a vast and interesting store of material meets the student, which, unfortunately, we can only very imperfectly touch upon, partly from considerations of space, and partly because the present work is intended to be more the story of the Hebrews in connection with Babylonia and Assyria. It is necessary, however, to speak of Egypt not only on account of the continuity of the narrative, but also as an introduction to the chapter in which the Tel-el-Amarna tablets are examined—documents found in Egypt, and addressed to an Egyptian king.

There is no doubt, that in the story of Joseph there exists a considerable amount of what is known as “local colour.” This is shown by the freedom which the women of Egypt evidently enjoyed (as exhibited in the story of Potiphar's wife), the matter of Joseph shaving himself before going to see Pharaoh, the many undoubtedly Egyptian names, etc. These, of course, are undeniable points in favour of the authenticity of the narrative, which, perfect as it is, omits one important thing, namely, the name of [pg 250] the Pharaoh who ruled at the time. That there should be such an omission in the comparatively unimportant references to the visits of Abraham and Isaac to Egypt is, perhaps, not so very strange, but that there should be no clue to the identity of the Egyptian ruler under whom Joseph entered Egypt, nor to the persecutor of the Israelites under whose reign they went forth from what had become to them practically a hostile land, is noteworthy, and a matter for great regret. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at that scholars have arisen who doubt the whole story, for the least flaw in a narrative in the present day, when unbelief and the desire for scientific proof meet one on every hand, will cause a thinking man to doubt anything and everything.

The degree of civilization to which Egypt had attained at this period, and probably thousands of years earlier, is so remarkable that it is difficult for us at this distance of time to realize it. Whether the country was in reality more civilized than Babylonia is a matter of doubt—possibly we regard their civilization as superior on account of the monuments being so much better preserved, and because, in consequence of the nature of the climate (which is such as to preserve even perishable things), an untold wealth of material exists. This was not the case with Babylonia, in which country the annual rains have caused almost all woodwork to decay, and only objects of stone and clay, and much more rarely metal, remain, even these being in many instances more or less damaged and therefore defective as really useful historical documents.

Egyptian antiquities testify to the civilization of the Egyptians, as has already been remarked, from remote ages, and the inscriptions show that the kingdom was well organized, and governed by rulers whose sway was popular and in accordance with the wishes of the priesthood. This state of things lasted, according to Prof. Flinders Petrie, until about 2098 [pg 251] b.c., when suddenly this exceedingly conservative nation, possessing as great a dislike for foreigners as do the Chinese at the present time, found itself attacked and invaded by barbarian hordes from Western Asia. From what district these people came is not known. According to Josephus, they were regarded by some as Arabians, but Josephus himself regarded them as being of his own race, i.e. Jewish. Quoting from Manetho, he shows that, under a ruler called Timaios, these people from the east, “men of an ignoble race,” invaded the land, and easily made themselves master of it without a battle. When the rulers of Egypt fell into their hands, they burned the cities, destroyed the temples of the gods, and inflicted every kind of indignity upon the inhabitants. At last they raised one of themselves named Salatis (a name evidently derived from the Semitic root šālaṭ, “to rule”) to the throne. This king made Memphis his capital, both Upper and Lower Egypt become tributary to him, and he stationed garrisons in those places which were most suitable for the purpose. One interesting point is, that he directed his attention especially to the security of the eastern frontier, because he feared the Assyrians, who, he foresaw, would one day undertake an invasion of his kingdom. This, to all appearance, refers to the Babylonian dominion, which, as we have seen (see pp. [124] and [155]) extended to the Mediterranean. As far as our historical knowledge extends, his fears were groundless, as no serious attempt (and certainly no successful attempt) to conquer Egypt was made until long after the time of Salatis, when Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, succeeded in subjugating the country, which remained under Assyrian overlordship until the reign of his son Aššur-banî-âpli.

Salatis ruled 19 years, and was succeeded by a king named Beon or Bnōn, who reigned 44 years. The next ruler of this race bears the Egyptian-sounding [pg 252] name of Apakhnas, and ruled for 37 years and 7 months. Next came Apophis, the Apepi of modern scholars, who occupied the throne no less than 61 years, Ianias, who ruled for 50 years and 1 month, having also a very long reign. After all these ruled Assis, 49 years and 2 months. These six, says Manetho, were the first of their rulers, and constantly strove to exterminate the Egyptians by making war upon them. Hyksos, or Shepherd kings, and their successors, he goes on to say, retained possession of Egypt 511 years.

In the end the kings of Thebais, and of other provinces of Egypt, arose against the Shepherds, and a long and mighty war was carried on between them, until the Shepherds were overcome by a king whose name was Misphragmouthosis, who, having expelled them from other parts of Egypt, shut them up in Avaris, a tract consisting of about 10,000 acres. All this tract the Shepherds fortified with great strength, whilst Thummosis, son of Misphragmouthosis, tried to force them to surrender by a siege, and surrounded them with an army of 480,000 men. He was beginning to despair of being able to reduce them, when they agreed to capitulate, stipulating that they should be permitted to leave Egypt, and go with all their families whithersoever they pleased. This was agreed to, and they bent their way through the desert towards Syria. Fearing the Assyrians (Babylonians), however, who then had dominion over Asia, they built a city in the country called Judea, of sufficient size to contain them all (they numbered not less than 240,000), and named it Jerusalem.

From this it would appear that, taking advantage of the disorganized state of Egypt about 2100 years before Christ, these Shepherd kings invaded the country, and gradually consolidated their power there. In process of time they had the whole of the country in their possession, and such rulers as remained [pg 253] were allowed to retain their provinces only as vassals, being really princes only in name. It is also very probable that if, as really appears, they were barbarians on entering Egypt, they became civilized by intercourse with the nation which they had conquered. This having been done, the monarchy which they established conformed more and more with that of the native Egyptian kings, so that their court and manner of administration were, to all intents and purposes, Egyptian; native administrators being appointed to many important posts in order to obtain the willing obedience of the people.

As the rule of these Shepherd kings began about 2100 b.c., and finished about 1587 b.c. (Petrie), it is clear that the visits of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph, including Jacob and his family, all fall within this period. As will easily be understood, such a synchronism is not without its value, especially when considering the historical authority of the Pentateuch. That it was during the dominion of the above-named rulers that Joseph entered Egypt is or has been the opinion of all the best students of Egyptian history—Birch, Brugsch, Maspero, Naville, Wiedemann, and many others—and there can be but little doubt of its correctness. It is remarkable that there is no native record of Joseph's administration, but this is, after all, hardly to be wondered at, especially when we consider the disturbed state of the country at a later date, when many records, especially those of the hated conquerors, must have been destroyed, and in any case there is the ever-present chance of some untoward fate overtaking them, by which such documents, if they really existed, may have become lost to the world for ever.

The strange thing about the foreign rulers who held possession of Egypt so long is, as has already been pointed out by Prof. Petrie, that they remained throughout to all intents and purposes a distinct [pg 254] nationality. Intermarriage between the two races, even when they were on the most friendly terms, must have been comparatively rare, and it is on this account that the native princes succeeded at last in ridding the land of the “impure,” as the native recorder has it. From this same record we get the information that one of the Shepherd kings was 'Apop'i (Apepy), the Apophis of the Greeks, and that he ruled at Hawar, a town which is identified with Avaris. The only god which this ruler served was Sutekh, identified with Râ or Rê (in earlier times also, to all appearance, pronounced Ria), the Egyptian Sun-god. According to the Sallier papyrus, from which the above details are taken, it would seem that Râ-'Apop'i, as he is there called, sent to Seqnen-Rê, “king of the South,” proposing that the latter should clear away all the hippopotamuses on the canals of the country, in order that Râ-'Apop'i might sleep. If the king of the South did not succeed in doing this, then he was to embrace the worship of Sutekh, but if he did succeed, then Râ-'Apop'i promised not to bow down before any other god of Egypt except Amon-Râ, the king of the gods.

This, of course, was a distinction without a difference, and is evidently put forward by the writer as such, for the worship of Sutekh in all probability meant the renouncing of the worship of all the other gods of Egypt, a thing which no Egyptian was likely to consent to. On the other hand, the worship of Amon-Râ by the Hyksos king would have been no great hardship, as it would in all probability not have involved any change in his faith, seeing that it was generally recognized that this deity and Sutekh were identical.

The end of this story is lost, so that there is no means of finding out how matters were brought to a head, and the flame of revolt kindled which ended in the expulsion of Egypt's Semitic invaders. What the [pg 255] historical value of the fragment may be is uncertain, as it reads more like a romance than a true history. In all probability, however, its greatest importance will be found to lie in its local colour.[50]

Joseph, on arriving in Egypt, therefore, found himself, to all intents and purposes, among friends. The man to whom the Ishmaelites sold him was, as stated in the sacred narrative, Potiphar, “an officer of Pharaoh's, captain of the guard, an Egyptian.” The writer of the narrative evidently wished to convey the idea that a man in the service of the king of Egypt, and bearing an Egyptian name, was not necessarily a native of the country. One in the favour of the [pg 256] Semitic ruler of the country, and enjoying his confidence, would naturally be favourably disposed towards a person of Semitic race falling into his hands, and this was actually the case with the Hebrew youth, who “found grace in his sight,” and became overseer of all his house. Indeed, it is possibly on account of this kindly disposition towards him (though also, and perhaps chiefly, on account of his being of the same race as the then ruler of Egypt), that Joseph was not at once put to death by his enraged master on hearing his wife's lying accusation against him, for no man, in those days, would have looked leniently upon such a crime as that with which Joseph was charged. In connection with this, it is noteworthy that he is said to have been consigned to “the prison, the place where the king's prisoners were bound.” Here, being of Semitic race, and helped by his God, he obtained the favour of the keeper of the prison, whose trusted deputy he became. Later on, after interpreting to the king's imprisoned chief butler his dream, he asks this official, when he should again be restored to his place, to make mention of him to Pharaoh, stating that he had been stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews, and had also done nothing to merit being detained a prisoner in that place. To all appearance he firmly believed that his nationality would favour him.

In accordance with his wish, so it turned out, for after two years mention was made of him by the chief butler to Pharaoh, and he is careful to state that Joseph was “an Hebrew.” When called, by the ruler of Egypt, in accordance with the custom of the country, Joseph shaved himself, and put on other clothes, before entering the royal presence. The sympathy of the king towards him was manifested immediately after his interpretation of his dreams, and he was at once, with Oriental promptitude, made governor of all the land of Egypt, receiving from the [pg 257] king his ring in token of the authority conferred upon him. The hero's complete Egyptianizing is to all appearance terminated by his receiving an Egyptian name, Zaphnath-paaneah, and marrying an Egyptian wife, Asenath, daughter of Poti-phera, priest of On.

There are a great many points for consideration in these few statements.

As has been remarked, it was doubtless due to the custom of Egyptian etiquette that Joseph shaved himself, setting aside his Semitic prejudices to the fashion, for it is supposed that Semites abhorred such a ceremony. Surely, it might be objected, the Semitic ruler of Egypt would have liked Joseph none the worse if he had retained his hair, and thus proclaimed his nationality, as it were, on this occasion. And such an objection would possess a certain amount of force. There is hardly any doubt, however, that Semitic abhorrence to the practice has been greatly exaggerated, for it was the custom for high-placed personages in Babylonia, in Joseph's time, to do this, and it remained the custom in that country until a very late date. This was, in all probability, a sacred duty with certain classes of people, such as priests and those dedicated to a divinity. A Hebrew at that time would probably have had no objection, therefore, to adopting the practice, especially in such a climate as that of Egypt, where the necessity of keeping as cool as possible would probably be recognized.

That it should be desired that the new viceroy should try to assimilate himself as much as possible with the natives of the country was probably the reason of Joseph's assuming an Egyptian name and taking an Egyptian wife. A great deal of uncertainty exists, however, as to the true Egyptian form and meaning of the name Zaphnath-paaneah (better Zaphenath-pa'eneakh). Many conjectures have been made as to its true Egyptian form and meaning, but that of Steindorff, “(God), the living one, has spoken,” [pg 258] is undoubtedly the best of all.[51] The meaning generally given to the name of Asenath, his wife, is “Belonging to (the goddess) Neith,” but a certain amount of doubt is attached to this rendering. As for the name of Poti-phera, her father, of that there is but little doubt: it is the Egyptian Pa-ti-pe-Ra', “the gift of Ra,” or “of the Sun,” and was naturally a very appropriate name for the priest of On, or Heliopolis, the centre of the worship of the Sun-god. Potiphar, the name of the Egyptian who bought Joseph from the Ishmaelites, is regarded as being a shortened form of this same name.

Another point, and that a very interesting one, is the question of the derivation of the word abrech, which the criers were ordered to call out before the newly-chosen viceroy. Professor Sayce compares this expression, with a great amount of probability, with the Babylonian abriqqu, from the Akkadian abrig, the meaning which he attributes to it being “seer.” He also refers to another word, namely, abarakku (fem. abarakkatu). Of these two, the latter etymology, on account of the consonants, is the more preferable, though the former one would probably suit better in the matter of vowels. But which is the right word?—they cannot both have been the original of abrech. The meaning of abriqqu is “wise one,” and that of abarakku “seer,” a high official of the Assyrian (and probably also the Babylonian) court. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets show that Assyro-Babylonian literature was known and studied in Egypt, and this would account for the word being introduced into Egyptian. It must be confessed, however, that seductive though these comparisons may be, the forms hardly fit, otherwise nothing would seem to be more appropriate than that a crier should be sent to precede Joseph during [pg 259] his triumphal progress through the streets of On or Avaris, announcing that this was the new grand vizier, or the great seer, who had successfully interpreted the king's dream. One would like to have, moreover, at least one instance of the occurrence of the word in Egyptian literature.

Naturally the Jews of later days were very much exercised in their minds that one of the favourites and primitive heroes of their race should have married a heathen woman, daughter of the priest of the Sun at On, and legends seem to have been invented to account for this undesirable circumstance and explain it away. It is regarded as being due to this that there exists a Christian legend, preserved in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Latin, purporting to give the history of Asenath. She is represented as the proud and beautiful daughter of Pentephres (Poti-phera), of Heliopolis, who lived in magnificent exclusion, and despised all men. Her parents wished her to marry Joseph, the great prime minister, but this she would not do. In the course of his visits to collect corn, Asenath sees him, and at once falls in love with him. Joseph, however, will have nothing to do with her because she worships idols. Shutting herself up for seven days in sackcloth and ashes, she threw her idols out of the window, and performed a strict penance. An angel in the form of Joseph then visits her, and blesses her, giving her to eat a mystic honeycomb, signed with the sign of the cross. Asenath, thus accepted, arrays herself in beautiful garments, and goes forth to meet Joseph. He had returned to the house in her parents' absence, but notwithstanding this, the betrothal at once takes place, and afterwards their marriage in the Pharaoh's presence. Her subsequent adventures include an attempt to carry her off on the part of Pharaoh's first-born, aided by Dan and Gad, and in this attempt the heir to the throne loses his life. The original legend made Asenath a Jewess by birth. (See Smith's Dictionary [pg 260]of Christian Biography, and Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible, sub voc.)

To what has already been said about the points tending to show that Joseph was viceroy in Egypt under one or more of the Hyksos or Shepherd kings, may be added the fact that, when his father and brethren came to settle in the land, they were instructed to say that they were shepherds, though it is at once added that “shepherds were an abomination to the Egyptians.” The only thing, to all appearance, that can be argued from this is, that however the native Egyptians might be inclined to look upon the new-comers, the ruler of the land (who is also represented as being pleased that Joseph's brethren had come) had no objection to them on that account. In support of the contention that the period of Joseph was the Hyksos period, it must also be pointed out that this new viceroy introduced at least one measure which might be regarded as somewhat harsh. He appropriated the surplus produce of the seven years of plenty, and when the years of famine came, he compelled the Egyptians to buy back, “even to their own impoverishment,”[52] what they had themselves previously parted with for nothing. The reason for this, however, seems to be clear. The Pharaoh upon the throne was of the same race as himself, and he and all Semitic foreigners in the land, including his father and brethren, were dependent on the same state of things continuing. What he then did would have the effect of placing the native Egyptians still more in the power of their ruler, consolidating the dynasty of Semites to which he belonged, and going far, therefore, to ensure the permanency of its rule. In acting as he did, Joseph was only doing what any other man in his position and of his race would have done.

As has been frequently pointed out, famines occurred from time to time in Egypt, and records [pg 261] of them are in existence. Even before the time of the Hyksos kings, a failure of the waters of the Nile to rise to their ordinary height would bring great want and distress. At such times the governors of the various provinces of the kingdom gloried, as Ebers says, in helping their subjects, and saving them from distress. Thus Ameni or Amen-em-ha, whose tomb is at Benihasan, praises himself in the following words—

“I cultivated the entire nome of Maḫ with many workpeople, I troubled no child and oppressed no widow, neither did I keep a fisherman from his fishing, or a herdsman from his herd. There was no head of the village whose people I had taken away for compulsory labour, and there was no one unhappy in my days or hungry in my time. When, however, a famine arose, I tilled all the fields in the nome of Maḫ, from its southern to its northern boundary, and gave nourishment and life to its inhabitants. So there was no one in the nome who died of hunger. To the widow I allowed as much as to the wife of a man, and in all that I did I never preferred the great man to the small one. When the Nile rose again, and everything flourished—fields, trees, and all else—I cut off nothing from the fields.”—Ebers in Bædeker's Upper Egypt, 1892, p. 15.

Amen-em-ha departed this life in the 43rd year of Usertesen I., or about 2714 b.c.

More interesting still, however, is the famine which occurred in the time of Baba, or Beby, as his name is also written. This functionary actually lived during the period of the dominion of the later Hyksos kings, and therefore very close to the time of Joseph. According to Brugsch, Baba lived and worked under the native king Ra-seqenen or Seqenen-Rê III., at the city now represented by the ruins of El-Kâb. Though the famine of which he speaks lasted [pg 262] “many years,” and notwithstanding that the ruler whom he served was a contemporary of 'Apop'i, the Apophis of Josephus, in whose reign, according to this Jewish historian, Joseph lived, it is thought that there is no reason to regard the calamity here referred to as being the famine of which so full an account is given in Genesis—such a supposition is “entirely gratuitous,” according to the writer in Bædeker's Upper Egypt. However this may be, there is no doubt that it is a very important parallel, and would imply that two disastrous famines took place in Egypt in close succession.

The following is Brugsch's translation of this text—

“The chief of the table of princes, Baba, the risen again, speaks thus: ‘I loved my father, I honoured my mother; my brother and my sisters loved me. I stepped out of the door of my house with a benevolent heart; I stood there with refreshing hand, and splendid were the preparations of what I collected for the feast-day. Mild was my heart, free from noisy angers. The god bestowed upon me a rich fortune on earth. The city wished me health and a life full of freshness. I punished the evildoers. The children who stood opposite me in the town during the days which I have fulfilled were, small as well as great, 60; there were prepared for them as many beds, chairs (?) as many, tables (?) as many. They all consumed 120 ephas of durra, the milk of three cows, 52 goats, and nine she-asses, of balsam a hin, and of oil two jars.

“ ‘My speech may appear a joke to some opponent. But I call as witness the god Month that my speech is true. I had all this prepared in my house; in addition I gave cream in the pantry and beer in the cellar in a more than sufficient number of hin measures.

“ ‘I collected the harvest, a friend of the harvest-god. I was watchful at the time of sowing. And now, [pg 263] when a famine arose, lasting many years, I issued corn to the city at each famine.’ ”[53]

As, in Hebrew, “seven” is often a round number, equivalent to the English “several,” the parallel is noteworthy. An additional remark upon the subject of the Pharaoh of Joseph by Ebers (Smith's Dict. of the Bible, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 1729) is sufficiently striking. He says that the Byzantine chronographer who is known under the name of Syncelles (he held the office of Syncellus or suffragan in his monastery), like Josephus and others, calls the Pharaoh of Joseph Apophis. Now Arab tradition, “in which little or no reliance can be placed,” says that he was an Amalekite of the name of Raian ibn el-Walid, and Naville, when excavating for the Egypt Exploration Fund, at Bubastis, found a block with the name of Apophis, and near it the lower part of a statue of black granite with the name of Ian-Ra or Ra-ian, in hieroglyphics. In consequence of this, Dr. Rieu and Mr. Cope Whithouse maintain that this Arab tradition was founded on fact. “We must therefore leave it uncertain,” adds Prof. Ebers, “whether Joseph came down into Egypt in the reign of Apophis, or in the reign of the hitherto unknown Raian.” Perhaps both are right, and Joseph was in Egypt during the reigns of two or more Egyptian kings. Traditions are sometimes strangely correct, in certain points, though grossly untrustworthy in others.

In Ebers's article to which reference has already been made, the writer is of opinion that Joseph met the king of Egypt on the occasion of the interpretation of the latter's dream, either at Tanis, the Zoan of the English translation (better Ṣo'an), the Arab. Ṣân, borrowed to all appearance from the Coptic Dzhane (Dzhani, Dzhaane, Dzhaani), from the Egyptian Dzha'an, or at Bubastis, the Egyptian Pi-Bast, the Pi-Beseth of Ezekiel xxx. 17, or at Memphis, the Egyptian [pg 264] Men-nofr, the Biblical Moph or Noph. Of these three sites the first (Tanis) is considered the most probable. It is situated at the north-east of the Delta, and was founded, according to Numbers xiii. 22, seven years after Hebron. From this statement, one would think that there must be some connection between these two places, or else some historical fact is to be associated with it. One thing is certain, and that is, that Tanis was the residence of the Hyksos kings, who held court there for a considerable period, as did also many who preceded and followed them. The ruins are extensive, and the place is noted for its Hyksos sphinxes, in whose faces “the coarse Hyksos type” is strongly marked. The officers under the Pharaoh of the Exodus speak, in their letters, of the life there as being sweet, and praise the neighbourhood for its fertility and the abundance of the food it produced (Ebers).

Nevertheless, Bubastis (the modern Tel-Basta) may have been the place where Joseph saw Pharaoh for the first time, as it was a place of great importance, and had a celebrated temple dedicated to the goddess Bast. Memphis, too, may be regarded as having claims, on account of its being situated so near to On, the abode of Joseph's father-in-law.

On, where Potiphera (“dedicated to the Sun”) was priest, was the celebrated city of the Sun-god in Egypt, whose foundation went back to an exceedingly remote antiquity. Besides Râ, Tum or Tmu (the evening sun), Râ-Harmachis (the morning sun), his companion Thoth, Sehu and Tefnut, children of Tum, and Osiris, who was venerated there as the soul of Râ, were among the deities of the place. To these must be added Horus, son of Osiris and Isis, god of the upper world or region of light. His mother Isis was worshipped at On under the name of Isis-Hathor, corresponding with Venus Urania. Besides these deities, various animals were held in honour, among them [pg 265] being two lions, perhaps representing Sehu and Tefnut, who were worshipped under the form of these animals; the bull Mnevis, sacred to Râ or Rê; and the Phœnix, called by the Egyptians Bennu, the bird of Râ, which was supposed to bring the ashes of its father to On once every 500 years, after the latter had been consumed by fire. Other sacred animals in this city were cats and a white sow. No wonder the Israelites of old winced at the thought that their hero Joseph, so perfect in character, wedded the daughter of a priest of this idolatrous city.

The shrine here was immensely wealthy. The staff of priests, officials, and subordinates connected with the temple is said to have numbered no less than 12,913. As the embodiment of the god Râ on earth, the king of the land naturally gave this shrine predominance, and increased its wealth by his gifts. This, added to the fact that the place had the honour of giving him a title (“Lord of On”) of which he, in his turn, was naturally proud, added greatly to the renown of the city. Besides the great temples, it is said to have been also “full of obelisks,” which were dedicated to the Sun-god in consequence of their being emblematic of his rays. “Cleopatra's Needle” on the Embankment, the obelisk bearing the same name at Cairo, the Flaminian obelisk at Rome, and probably many others, all came from this city. According to Herodotus, the priests of Heliopolis or On were renowned above all others in Egypt for learning.

The Hyksos who held rule in Egypt for so many centuries are regarded as having been wandering hordes of Bedouin Asiatics, called by the Egyptians “the impure,” though they also spoke of them under their name of Amu, regarded as being a word derived from the Semitic 'Am, from the root 'amam, meaning “people.” How early they entered the country is not exactly known, but Petrie's estimate, 2097 b.c., may be taken as the nearest at present possible. In [pg 266] connection with this it may be noted that, at the modern fishing-village of Sân, the present representative of the ancient Tanis, which was the city of the Hyksos kings described above, the faces and figures of the inhabitants are strange and unlike those of the remainder of Egypt. They call themselves Melakiyin, i.e. Melekites or “Royalists,” a name applied in the Christian period to a sect of the orthodox Church. They were anciently known as Pi-shemer, corrupted to Bashmurites, and also as Pi-Amu, corrupted to Biamites. There is, therefore, hardly any doubt that these people, the descendants of the wild and turbulent Bashmurites and Biamites who gave so much trouble to the khalifs Merwân II. (744-750) and Mamun (813-822), may claim for their ancestors either such of the followers of the Hyksos kings who, on the expulsion of the latter, decided to remain in the country, or else of those Semites whom the Hyksos found in Egypt when they conquered the country, and who helped them to consolidate their dominion, partly from sympathy and partly from interest.

Notwithstanding Joseph's long residence in Egypt, it is noteworthy that, like the Hyksos rulers of the land, he did not, to all appearance, become in any sense Egyptianized, but retained his Semitic nationality to the last, as is shown by his command to his Hebrew fellow-subjects to carry his remains away with them when they, in the fulness of time, should leave the country. This being the case, Kalisch has asked, very naturally, “Why did not Joseph, like Jacob, order his body to be conveyed at once to Canaan?” In all probability the explanation is, that the Apophis referred to by the Greek writers was, as has been suggested, a contemporary of Seqnen-Rê III., and therefore quite close to the end of the Hyksos period. Joseph must, then, have passed at least part of his life under native Egyptian rule, and at this time national [pg 267] feeling must have been more violently anti-Semitic than ever. It may therefore be supposed that it would not have been by any means politic for him to proclaim his nationality in this way, for this might have the effect of endangering the lives and prospects of his surviving countrymen, who were all related to him, by attracting to them the attention of the hostile populace and court—a thing which would, and did, happen soon enough.

A still more difficult question to answer would be, “Why did not the Hebrews go out of Egypt with the Hyksos?” The answer probably is, that Joseph was, to all appearance, still known and honoured by the native Pharaoh, when he came to the throne, for what he had done for the country. It was seemingly not until after Joseph's death that a Pharaoh arose who knew him not. It may therefore be supposed that, until that time, the Hebrews lived unmolested in the land which they had so long made their home.

---

Chapter VIII. The Tel-El-Amarna Tablets And The Exodus.

Egypt and Syria before the Exodus—The testimony of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets—The relations between the two countries during the reigns of Amenophis III. and IV.—Burra-burias of Babylonia, Ašur-ubalit of Assyria—Yabitiri, and others in Palestine—The Ḫabati and the Ḫabiri—The Letters of Abdi-ṭâba (Ebed-tob, Abd-ḫiba)—The Pharaoh and the prince of the Amorites—Mahler and the date of the Exodus.

“Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come, let us deal with them wisely, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they also join themselves unto our enemies, and fight against us: and get them out of the land.”

Such are the words which the new king who knew not Joseph, when he came to the throne, spoke to his people with regard to the alien population which had been allowed during a former reign to settle in the land of Goshen, a fruitful district on the north-east of Egypt, east of Bubastis (Zakāzik). It is the speech of one who feared that, if nothing were done to prevent them from becoming too powerful, they would be a source of danger to the state, as they might join, with every chance of success, in any attack which might be made on the kingdom over which he ruled. It was, in all probability, the presence of a similar foreign (Semitic) population in or near this district, about 2100 years b.c., which had contributed—or perhaps even made—the success of the Hyksos invaders, [pg 269] through which Egypt had been ruled by an alien dynasty for five hundred years. The repetition of such a catastrophe was at all hazards to be prevented. It would seem, therefore, that the persecution of the Hebrews was not undertaken altogether wantonly, but with the object of turning aside a possible misfortune.

As the historical nature of the Exodus has not as yet been absolutely disproved, it is here taken to be a matter of history, and this being the case, it is necessary to try to identify, or, rather, to state what are the most probable opinions, as to the rulers of Egypt at the time of the Oppression and the Exodus. Ramses II. of the nineteenth dynasty is generally held to be the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and Meneptah, his son and successor, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Lieblein, however, would regard this latter event as having occurred during the reign either of Amenophis III., or his son, Amenophis IV., of the eighteenth dynasty. This latter theory is based on the Tel-el-Amarna letters, which speak of the Ḫabiri, roving bodies of men which went about Palestine stirring up the people, and even compelling them by force to renounce Egyptian rule (which extended in those days over the whole of this district). It will be part of the scope of the present work to examine into this question.

After the death of Seqnen-Rê in battle (see p. [255]), he was buried in the usual way at Thebes, implying, as Petrie points out, that the Egyptians had pushed their frontier some way to the north, “so that ceremonials at Thebes were uninterrupted.” Further advance, he thinks, was made in the reign of Kames, “the valiant prince,” as he calls himself, because Aah-mes was able to besiege the stronghold of the Hyksos down in the Delta at the beginning of his reign, about 1585 b.c. It is to be noted that two names come, to all appearance, between those of [pg 270] Kames and Aah-mes, but these are probably not those of important kings, though a part of the honour of the progress made ought to be accredited to them. To all appearance it was the efforts of the Thebans, who had been pushing their way northwards during these last three years, which prepared the way for the successes of Aah-mes—successes which placed him on the throne of Egypt, thus making him the founder of the eighteenth dynasty.

Before he became Pharaoh, he succeeded, within four or five years, not only in getting rid of the overlordship of the Hyksos kings, but also in driving them out of the Nile valley, taking possession of Avaris, and pursuing them into Palestine. Here, in the fifth year, he was able to capture Sharhana or Sharuhen, some miles south of Lachish. He then went on to Zahi (Phœnicia), and later defeated the Mentiu of Setet (the Bedouin of the hill-country), attacking afterwards the Anu Khenti. On his return to Egypt, he found that he had to deal with two outbreaks on the part of those of the Hyksos (probably half-breeds) who remained, and these having been reduced to subjection, there was apparently no further trouble from the Asiatics remaining in the country. So popular was this founder of a new dynasty in Egypt, that both he and his queen had divine honours paid to them beyond those rendered to any other Egyptian ruler. His son Amen-hotep I. shared largely in these testimonies of popular esteem.

After this the power of Egypt increased. The venerable captain of marines, Aah-mes, relates that 'Aa-kheper-ka-Rê (Thothmes I.) went against the Rutennu (Syrians) for the purpose of taking satisfaction, and marched as far as Naharaina (Upper Mesopotamia), where he found that an enemy had plotted conspiracy. On this occasion Thothmes gained many victories and took many captives. Another official mentioning the Syrian campaigns of this ruler is Pen-nekheb, who [pg 271] accompanied him to Naharaina. Thothmes III. also refers to his grandfather's conquest in Syria, stating that he placed another inscription where the tablet of his father 'Aa-kheper-ka-Rê was, and adds that “his majesty came to the city of Niy on his return. Then his majesty set up his tablet in Naharaina to enlarge the frontiers of Kemi,” i.e. Egypt. Niy was in the region of Aleppo, on the Euphrates.

Thothmes II. (1516-1503, Petrie) retained those portions of Syria which his father had conquered. An expedition thither is also mentioned by Pen-nekheb, who says: “I followed the king 'A-kheper-en-Rê (Thothmes II.), the blessed one. I brought away from the land of the Shasu (Bedouin, apparently the same tribes as those to which the Hyksos or hak shasu belonged) very many prisoners—I cannot reckon them.... The king 'A-kheper-en-Rê gave me two gold bracelets, six collars, three bracelets of lapis-lazuli, and a silver war-ax.”

Thothmes III. (1505-1449), son of Thothmes II., had one of the longest and most glorious reigns in all Egyptian history. He was born at Thebes, and crowned when about nine years old. On the death of Hatshepsut, the queen regent, his father's first wife, who, however, was not his own mother, his warlike expeditions began, and he assembled an army on the frontier of Zalu, preparatory to an expedition against the chiefs of Southern Syria, who had rebelled. This was his twenty-second year. Next year, on his coronation-day, he found himself, after a long march, at Gaza, on the way to Carmel and Megiddo, where he defeated the assembled Syrian chiefs, and utterly routed them on the plain of Esdraelon. The allies then took refuge in the town, which was besieged, and they were obliged to capitulate. Enormous spoils from this place, as well as from the other cities of Syria, was the result. This expedition was repeated in the two following years.

In his twenty-ninth year he made his fifth expedition to the Syrian hill-country, Tunep, Arvad, and Phœnicia, from which latter district much spoil was obtained. The two following years found him in the same region. In his thirty-third year he set up a tablet on the boundaries of Naharaina. The next year he made a campaign to, and received tribute from Syria, Phœnicia, and Cyprus. In his thirty-fifth year he went to Phœnicia, and received tribute from Naharaina. The year following this he received tribute from Cyprus. After this he again went to Phœnicia, and he is supposed to have received tribute from Cyprus, Syria, and the Hittites in the fortieth and forty-first years of his reign. In his forty-second year there was an expedition to Tunep, Kadesh, etc. Besides the above, he either made himself, or dispatched, under his generals, during his long reign (fifty-four years) many expeditions into other lands than those mentioned above, and also took part in numerous works and public functions in his own country.

The expeditions in Syria made by this king are told very graphically and at great length. The march to Megiddo, the council of war, and the dispositions for the attack, are given in full, and the king claims to have himself protected his army when going through a narrow defile in which all might have been lost had the enemy against whom they were marching made an onslaught. Representations of the spoil taken accompany the lists enumerating the amount, and show that the ancient Syrians had attained to a skill, in the arts as then known, equal, if not superior, to that of the Egyptians. Among the places mentioned are Arvad, Kadesh, Gaza, Yemma, etc. Besides Thothmes III.'s own annals, there is an inscription of one of his officers, Amen-em-heb, who gives his version, which, however, is not divided into different years. This text mentions the Negeb, where he took some captives; Carchemish, from which place he obtained [pg 273] spoil, and other places. He speaks also of Thothmes III. having hunted elephants in the land of Niy, one hundred and twenty in number, for their tusks. This agrees with what has been stated from the Assyrian inscriptions (pp. [200], [201]) concerning the existence of these animals in the Lebanon and around Haran.

Thothmes III. was succeeded by Amenophis II., a warlike and vigorous ruler, who followed in his father's footsteps, and by so doing maintained the power and influence of his country. Petrie (History, ii. p. 154) argues with great probability that he was not of age when he came to the throne, and that he was apparently not the eldest of his father's sons. His first expedition, which was a raid in Asia “to establish his renown,” was probably, as Prof. Petrie says, in the first or second year of his reign. “His majesty had success (in Shemesh-atuma of South Galilee), his majesty himself made captives there.... Account of what his majesty himself took in this day: living prisoners Satiu 18, oxen 19.” Later on he had some further success, and took spoil from the Satiu with whom he fought.

In his second year, six months after the above expedition, he seems to have made a promenade in force as far as the frontiers of the Egyptian domains in Asia, in order to assert his power, and as a check to any disaffection which might exist. After this there was a triumphal return to Egypt, where he held a festival on the occasion of the laying of the foundation-stone of the temple of Amadeh. Among the captives sent to Egypt were seven chiefs of the territory of Takhsi, near Aleppo, who were hung up by the feet on the fore-part of the king's barque. Of these six were afterwards hung up on the wall of Thebes in the same manner, a circumstance which suggests that the Egyptians were upon about the same level as the Assyrians with regard to their barbarous customs in [pg 274] war, notwithstanding their civilization and polish in other things.

He claims as his own nearly all the lands which his father had conquered—the South land, the Oases, the Lybians, Nubians, Semites, Kefto (according to W. Max Müller, Cilicia), and the Upper Rutennu, or district of Megiddo.

Amenophis II. died in 1423 b.c., and was succeeded by his son, Thothmes IV. His earlier years seem to have been occupied in asserting his power in Syria, and his later years were devoted to Nubia. Naharaina and the Kheta or Hittites occur in inscriptions referring to the former period. According to Manetho, he reigned nine years and eight months. He was succeeded by his son, Amenophis III. (1414-1379, according to Petrie).

At this time Syria was completely in the hands of the Egyptians. Constant intercourse went on between the princes of the two countries, who in Syria seem to have been contented with their subordinate position. It is during this reign that the now celebrated Tel-el-Amarna tablets come to our aid, and show how this was brought about. Alliance between the two countries by marriage had taken place, and the royal and various princely families were therefore related. Besides this, there was naturally reluctance on the part of a prince of Syria to take up a hostile attitude with regard to the king who had taken his daughter in marriage, as he would always be in fear of endangering his daughter's safety, and for the same cause he would naturally try to restrain the petty rulers of his own district, including those of his neighbours who were more of the nature of equals. In addition to this, the sons of the Syrian chiefs were sent to be educated in Egypt, and as the Egyptian ruler at the time had married Syrian princesses, it is probable, as Petrie says, that the sons of Syrian chiefs, educated in Egypt, were married to Egyptians at the close of their [pg 275] education. As it was only stipulated that they should be restored to their native country to succeed their fathers, they may, it is thought, have lived in Egypt until middle life. This being so, the rulers of Syria would naturally become imbued with the thoughts and ways of the Egyptians, and undesirous, therefore, of throwing off the yoke. If, however, things were all really as thus depicted, there is one thing which is strange, namely, that the correspondence which was carried on between the two districts was not in Egyptian (which the princes of Syria ought to have known sufficiently well to write), but in Assyro-Babylonian, which was a foreign tongue to them all, especially the king of Mitanni, whose native language was not even Semitic. That the kings of Babylonia should correspond with the king of Egypt in Babylonian was to be expected, but if the kings of Syria, or their sons, were educated in Egypt, it is remarkable that we find so many letters in the Babylonian language.

Apparently, therefore, everything pointed to a continuance of the state of things which existed at the time of the king's accession to the throne. It was evidently his desire that nothing should occur to change the cordial relations which existed between himself and the Egyptian dependencies, hence the mild suzerainty exercised. There was an Ethiopian campaign in his fifth year, after which, to all appearance, no warlike expeditions were undertaken—in fact, it was considered that there was no need for them.

The first wife of Amenophis III. was Teie, as the Tel-el-Amarna tablets call her, the Teyi of the Egyptian monuments. She was daughter of Yewea and Tewa, and was to all appearance of Asiatic nationality. Prof. Petrie thinks that she may have been of Syrian race, and as a matter of fact, her portrait shows her with a pleasant face of Semitic type and a pointed [pg 276] chin. To all appearance, she was a personage of great importance in the land, and when negotiations with the princes of the north were being carried on, she was one of those who were taken into consideration by the outlanders.

Colossal statue of Hadad, dedicated by Bar-Rekub, King of Sam'allu, to Hadad. El, Rekub-el, Shamash, and the gods of Yadî, in memory of his father, Panammû, about 730 B.C. The horned cap which the god wears probably shows Assyro-Babylonian influence. Gerchin N.E. of Zenjirli. From Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen, Part XI., by permission of the publishing-house of Georg Reimer, Berlin.

In one of the tablets from Tel-el-Amarna, it would appear that, besides Teie, Amenophis III. had married a sister of Dušratta, king of Mitanni, named Gilu-ḫêpa, for news of whom Dušratta wrote to the Pharaoh, sending presents to him, as well as to his sister. Later on, the Egyptian king asks Dušratta for one of his daughters, sending a messenger named Manê with a tablet to that effect. As Dušratta in his letter to the Pharaoh Nimmuaria (Neb-mut-Ra,[54] Amenophis III.) refers to her as the (future) mistress of Egypt, it is clear that she was intended as the consort of his son, Amenophis IV. From other letters which passed between them, it would seem that the princess in question was named Tâdu-ḫêpa, called, in Egyptian, Nefer-titi (perhaps a translation of her Mitannian name). It was to all appearance the custom in those days, as at the present time, for the kings of the various states to ally themselves by marriage with other royal houses; and at a time when kings, at least, were allowed more wives than one, it was possible for them to take pledges for the preservation of peace by making use of the privilege. Quite in accordance with this are the statements contained in other texts concerning intermarriages of this kind, both Amenophis III. and IV. having likewise espoused Babylonian princesses, daughters of Kallima-Sin and Burra-buriaš, the son of the latter being at the same time betrothed to Amenophis IV.'s daughter. They were also constantly making presents to each other, each trying to get as much as he possibly could of the things which were [pg 277] not common in his own land—gold, much gold, being the commodity that the king of Egypt was expected to supply. The other kings sent him, in return, various stones (lapis-lazuli being often mentioned), chariots, horses, and other things, both natural and manufactured products. The women by whose means these friendly relations had been established, made use of the messengers sent to their fatherland to transmit messages to their relatives and ask after their health.

From these tablets we obtain certain details as to the state of the Holy Land and the surrounding country before the entry of the Israelites. Besides the kingdom of Mitanni mentioned above, there were the states of Alašia (supposed to be Cyprus), Ziri-bašani (plain of Bashan), Hazor, Askelon, Lachish, Gaza, Qatna (west of Damascus), Accho, Simyra, Tyre, Sidon, the Amorites, the Hittites, Dunip (Tenneb), Jerusalem, etc., etc. Many of them were small states with the cities after which they are named as capital, and naturally were obliged to enter into a league for their common protection, or else accept the suzerainty of some more powerful state, falling, if its protector went under, into the power of the common invader. It must have been in consequence of this state of things in the east Mediterranean littoral that Egypt was able to extend her power so far, and subdue this large district.

From these tablets we learn something of their religion. To all appearance one of the gods most worshipped in the extreme west of Asia was Rimmon, the Rammānu (“thunderer”) of the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Addu or Hadad of the Semitic nations of this district (the name Addu afterwards became general as the appellation of the god in Babylonia and Assyria), and the Tešupa or Tešub of Mitanni (Aram-Naharaim) and district to the north (Armenia). At Tyre they seem to have worshipped [pg 278] a personage or deity called Šalmayātu, whilst the Phœnician Astarte is commemorated in âl Aštarti, “the city of Aštartu,” perhaps Ashtaroth, 29 miles east of Tiberias (Petrie). As the word Ashtoreth is evidently a lengthening of the name of the Assyro-Babylonian goddess Ištar, it is not to be wondered at that this goddess should be mentioned by the king of Mitanni, Dušratta, who refers to a statue of Ištar of Nineveh, which had been sent to Egypt, and requests that it may be returned to him soon. The name of Nergal, also, was evidently familiar to the king of Alašia, for he speaks of the hand of that god as having killed all his people, when wishing to refer to the prevalence of a pestilence there, Nergal being the Assyro-Babylonian god of disease and death. In the same way Dušratta speaks of Šamaš, the Assyro-Babylonian Sun-god, but he refers to him more as the luminary which men love than as a god, though there is every probability that he was worshipped in Mitanni.[55] Another Assyro-Babylonian deity whose name occurs is Ninip, once in the name of Abdi-Ninip, “servant of Ninip,” apparently a Gebalite, and again in âl Bêth-Ninip, “(city of) the temple of Ninip,” in a district which Abdi-Aširta called upon to unite against Gebal—perhaps the Beth-Ninip in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. In the name of Abdi-Aširta it is to be noted that we have here, to all appearance, the name of the asherah or “grove” of the Authorised Version, the “token” of the goddess Ištar,[56] with the ideogram for which the word once interchanges. The Egyptian god Amāna (Amon) is mentioned several times, invoked apparently as a god in whom the writer believed, though he was the special god of the Egyptians and the Egyptian king. [pg 279] In addition to the above deities, the names of men reveal Uraš, the god of Dailem near Babylon, Bidina, another Babylonian deity, and Merodach, the principal god of the Babylonians. Among west Semitic deities may be mentioned Dagan (Dagon), Milku (Melech, Moloch), and others.

Notwithstanding a considerable period of Egyptian rule, therefore, Babylonian influence, which had been predominant in the tract for many centuries, still held the upper hand. Merodach was to all appearance venerated, Nergal was worshipped as the god of death and disease, Ištar was held in high esteem. It must have been during those centuries of Babylonian rule that the worship of Tammuz or Adonis got into the country, becoming one of the stumbling-blocks of the Israelites in later days, when Hebrew women lamented for him, hidden in the realm of darkness where dwelt Persephone (Ereš-ki-gala, “the lady of the great domain” of the Babylonians), into whose realm, at great risk, Ištar, his spouse, descended to seek him, but only escaped from the rival's clutches by the intervention of the gods.

Exceedingly interesting are the various forms of government in Western Asia at this period. Among hereditary chiefs may be mentioned Etakama of Gidši (Kadesh), Šum-addu, who is probably the same as Šamu-Addu, prince of Šamḫuna, Mut-zu'u (see p. [286]), and Azru, though this last is doubtful, as in one of the letters he calls himself a governor installed by the king of Egypt. The best example of an elected chief, however, is in all probability Yabitiri, governor of Gaza and Jaffa, who, when young, went down to Egypt and served in the Egyptian army, being afterwards appointed to the posts which he held later. The power of the Egyptian kings of a period somewhat preceding this is well exemplified by the fact, that Addu-nirari of Assyria attributes to an Egyptian ruler the appointment of his grandfather and father as [pg 280] kings of Nuḫašše, on account of which all three rulers seem to have acknowledged Egyptian overlordship. An interesting instance of female rule is that of Nin-Urmuru (?),[57] who, in her letters, mentions Ajalon and Sarḫa (identified with Zorah), probably lying in her district.

Most interesting of all, however, is the case of Jerusalem, whose ruler, as will be seen from the letters quoted later on, was apparently elected by some of the magnates of the district which acknowledged his sway, and who were probably the members of a religious community. Nothing, however, is known of the electorate or the system of election employed—all that can be said is, that the ruler was not placed there by virtue of his father or his mother, but by the “mighty king.”

The matter of the government of Dunip, one of the most important towns of ancient Palestine, is also of importance, as it does not seem to have possessed an autocratic head of any kind, and may have been a kind of republic. Its government was probably similar to that of Irqata, which was ruled over by its elders, acknowledging the overlordship of the Egyptian king. A similar state of things seems to have prevailed in Babylonia, where, however, the king of Babylon was naturally recognized as lord of the country. In all probability the towns governed by their elders were regarded as royal cities of Egypt, whilst the others were semi-independent states.

The relations of the Egyptian king with foreign states is well illustrated by the following—

Letter From The Babylonian King Burra-Buriaš (Burna-Buriaš) To Amenophis IV. King Of Egypt.

“(To) Napḫu'ruria the king of Egypt, my brother, say also thus: ‘It is Burra-buriaš, king of the land of Karu-duniaš, thy brother. My health is good. To thee, thy country, thine house, thy wives, thy sons, thy great men, thine horses, thy chariots, may there be very good health.

“I and my brother have spoken friendship with each other, and we said as follows: ‘As our fathers were with each other, let us be friendly.’ Now my merchants, who went with Aḫi-ṭâbu, remained in the land of Kinaḫḫi (Canaan) for trade. After Aḫi-ṭâbu proceeded to my brother,[58] in the city Ḫinnatunu of the land of Kinaḫḫi (Canaan), when Šum-adda, son of Malummê, (and) Šutadna, son of Šarâtum, of the city of Akka (Accho), sent their people, they killed my merchants, and took their money away. When I have sent (Azzu (?)) to thy presence, ask him, and let him tell thee.”

(Reverse)

“(Ki)naḫḫi is thy land, and (its) king(s are thy servants). In thy land have I been ill-treated—res(train them): make (up) the money which they have taken away; and kill the people who have killed my subjects, and avenge them. And if thou kill not these people, they will return, and both kill my caravans and thy messengers, and the messenger will be broken off between us, and if (this happen), they will fall away from thee. One man (of) mine, when Šum-adda had cut off his feet,[59] he held him prisoner; and [pg 282] another man, when Šutadna, the Akkaite (Acchoite), had caused him to be placed with the servants, became a servant before him.[60] Let (them take) those men to thee, and see thou to (it). And mayest thou know how I fare. I have caused to be brought to thee 1 mana of lapis-stone (as a gi)ft. (Let) my (messe)nger (come back) quickly. Let me know how my brother fares. Do not de(tain) my (mess)enger—let him come (back) quickly.”

It is clear from this, and from other inscriptions of the series, that a kind of international law existed among the nations of the ancient East, by which they were expected to protect the caravans passing through each other's territory, and, in fact, see that no harm came to any of each other's subjects. They were expected to punish all persons who may have attacked and ill-treated or murdered them, and make restitution of property stolen. The law (probably an unwritten one) was evidently much the same as prevails among civilized nations at the present day. That these ancient rulers always obtained from their “brothers” the redress which they demanded, is more than doubtful. Burra-buriaš's entreaty that his messenger might be returned to him quickly points to vexatious delays on former occasions, and probable failure to obtain any justice or redress whatever.

The relations of Egypt with Assyria were similar to those with Babylonia, except that the Assyrian king, as has been shown, was, in some respects, a vassal.

Letter From The Assyrian King Ašur-Uballiṭ To Amenophis IV. King Of Egypt.

(Divided into paragraphs in accordance with the indications of the original text.)

“To Napḫurî, (the great king?), the king of Egypt, [pg 283] my brother, (say) thus: ‘It is Ašur-uballiṭ, king of Aššur, the great king, thy brother.’

“To thee, to thy house and thy country, may there be peace.

“When I saw thy messengers, I rejoiced greatly. Thy messengers are staying with me for a time.

“I have caused to be brought to thee as thy gift a fine royal chariot of my y(ok)e, and 2 white horses of m(y y)oke, and one chariot without yoke, and 1 seal of fine lapis-lazuli.

“The great king's return-gift may be thus: Gold in thy land is (as) dust—they gather it up. Why should it go round into thine eyes? I have undertaken to build a new palace. Cause gold, as much as its over-laying and its need (requires), to be sent.

“When Ašur-nadin-âḫi, my father, sent to the land of Egypt, they caused to be sent to him 20 talents of gold.

“When the Ḫanigalbatian king sent to Egypt to thy father, he caused 20 talents of go(ld) to be brought to him.

“(Behold), thou hast caused to be brought ... gold to the Ḫani(gal)ba(tian) king ... and to me, (but f)or the going and returning it suffices (?) not for wages for my messengers.

“If friendship be desirable unto thee, cause much gold to be brought; and as it will be thy house, send, and let them take what thou desirest.

“We are distant countries—in this wise let our messengers go about.

“Those who delayed thy messengers were the Sutites, their persecutors; dead (was I) until I had sent, and they had taken the persecuting Sutites. Their bands (?) shall verily not delay my messengers.

“As for messengers abroad, why should they be detained and die there? If they stay abroad, the king will have the advantage, so let him stay and let him die abroad—let the king then have the advantage. And if not, why should the messengers whom we [pg 284] send die abroad? ... attack the messengers and cause them to die abroad.”

The last paragraph is difficult to understand on account of its being so mutilated, but the sense of the whole seems now to be fairly clear. Ašur-uballiṭ desires to be on friendly terms with Egypt, but he is anxious to get, above all, the precious metal which was said to be so plentiful there, and for which all the rulers of Western Asia seem to have hungered. And this leads to the interesting statement in the fifth paragraph, in which gold in Egypt is said to have been as dust; and there is the question, “Why should it go round into thine eyes?” (Amminî ina ênē-ka isaḫḫur?) implying that, being dust, it behaved as dust, and was in that respect undesirable, and therefore to be got rid of. He would like to have some for the decoration of his palace—his father, and the king of Ḫanigalbat had been favoured in this way. Let it not be as little (apparently), as that sent to the Ḫanigalbatian king, for that would not suffice to pay his messengers. The interchange of things needed as presents made good friends. It was a lawless band of Sutites who had detained the Egyptian king's messengers, and he was as one dead until his people had stopped their depredations. It was useful to a king that his ambassadors lived and died abroad, but not that they should be attacked and killed there.

The relations of Egypt with another class of ruler is well illustrated by the following letter from a prince or governor brought up in Egypt—

Yabitiri Asserts His Faithfulness, And Touches Upon His Early Life.

“To the king my lord, my gods, my Sun-gods, say also thus: ‘(it is) Yabitiri thy servant, the dust of thy feet. At the feet of the king my lord, my gods, my Sun-gods, seven times, and twice seven times I fall. [pg 285] Furthermore, behold, I am a faithful servant[61] of the king my lord. I look here, and I look there,[62] and it is not clear; then I look upon the king my lord, and it is clear. And the brick-foundation may give way from beneath its wall, but I will not give way from beneath the feet of the king my lord. And the king my lord may ask Yanḫama, his official, (concerning) when I was young, and they sent me down to Egypt, where I served the king my lord, and stood in the city-gate of the king my lord. And the king my lord may ask his official when I guard the city-gate of Azzati (Gaza) and the city-gate of Yapu (Jaffa). And I am with the hired troops of the king my lord, where they go, I am with them, and I am also, therefore, with them now. The yoke of the king my lord is on my neck, and I bear it.’ ”

Apparently there had been spread abroad some statement reflecting on the faithfulness of the writer, who seeks to justify himself by appealing to his former services to the Egyptian king. His letter has a ring of sincerity in it which is wanting in many of the communications of this nature.

Reference has already been made to the caravans which passed through the territory of the various rulers, and the protection which those rulers were supposed to extend to them. Burra-buriaš, in his letter translated above, complains that Babylonian caravans had been attacked in the land of Canaan, and asks for the punishment of the persons involved. To all appearance the protection of the caravans was entrusted to certain chiefs, owing allegiance to the Egyptian king, who always held themselves ready to perform this duty. The following translation shows how one of the chiefs or governors of a Canaanitish district looked after the caravans, as his father did before him—

Letter From Mut-Zu'u To The King Of Egypt.

“To the king, my lord and my sun, say thus: ‘It is Mut-zu'u[63] thy servant, the dust of thy feet, the earth for thee to tread upon. Seven times, twice seven times, I fall down at the feet of the king my lord.’

“The king my lord has sent by Ḫâya to speak of the Ḫana-galbat[64] caravan. This I have dispatched and have directed it. Who am I, that I should not dispatch the caravans of the king my lord? Behold, (Lab)'aya, my father, (who was faithful) to the king his lord, used to send (a caravan, and give directions concerning it. The cara)vans (which) the king (di)rected to the land of Ḫana-galbat (and) to the land of Kara-duniaš let the king my lord send. (As to) the caravan, I will bring it so that it is safe.”

As will be seen from this, Mut-zu'u was one of the humble vassals of “the king his lord,” who at that time—evidently the peaceful days of Amenophis III.—was the happy possessor of many such. As examples of the relations between the smaller rulers and their suzerain, may be quoted two of the numerous letters of Yidia of Askelon, who provided the necessaries for the Egyptian army in Palestine.

Yidia, The Askelonite, Concerning The King's Representative.

“To the king, my lord, my Sun, the Sun who (cometh) from the heavens, (say also) thus: ‘(It is) Yidia, the Askelonite, thy servant, the dust of thy [pg 287] feet, thy charioteer.[65] I fall down before the feet of the king my lord seven times and twice seven times, back and breast.’

“Now (for) my (lord), (for) the gods of the king my lord, my god, my Sun, I guard this city, and again ... let me protect all his land.

“I have heard the words of the king my lord to his representative, when he is not able to protect the country of the king my lord. So now the king my lord has appointed Rianappa, the representative of the king my lord, to whom[66] I will bring (?) good fortune for the king.

“Whatever cometh out of the mouth of the king my lord, lo, that will I keep day and night.”

Yidia Concerning The Commissariat.

“To the king my lord, my Sun, my god, the Sun who (cometh) from the heavens, (say also) thus: ‘(it is) Yidia thy servant, the dust of thy feet, thy charioteer. I fall down at the feet of the king my lord seven times and twice seven times, back and breast. Behold, I am keeping the commands of the king my lord, the son of the Sun, and behold, I have provided the food, drink, oil, grain, oxen, (and) sheep, for the soldiers of the king my lord—provisions, every kind, for the soldiers of the king my lord. Who would be a vassal, and not obey the words of the king my lord, the son of the Sun?’ ”

Letters similar to the above are numerous, and show that Egyptian rule was not regarded as burthensome—indeed, it may have been even welcome, tending in all [pg 288] probability to the preservation of peace. It must have been difficult, however, for the Egyptian king to hold the scales of justice always even, for among the governors were always men who professed faithfulness, but who aimed at throwing off the Egyptian yoke, light as it was.

In all probability the trouble began in the north, that district being farthest from the Egyptian marches, and what was going on there was on that account longer in reaching the knowledge of the king. Judging from a letter from Ili-rabiḫ, written from Gebal, Etakama, of Kinza and Kadesh, smote the whole of the lands of Amki, “the territory of the king.” “And now,” the inscription continues, “he has sent his people to seize the lands of Amki and the places. Further, the king of the land of Ḫatta (Heth), and the king of the land of Narima (Naharaim), have been unsuccessful (?), and” (here the writer breaks off the narrative).

Another account of this affair is as follows—

Bêri (Or Bieri) To The King About The Attack On Amki.

“To the king, my lord, (my god, my sungod), say then thus: ‘It is Bêri, (thy servant), the Ḫašabite.’ Down to the dust of the feet of the king my lord 7 (times) and 7 (times) I fall. Behold, we occupy, in Amki, the cities of the king, my lord, and Edagama, the Kinzite, has gone to meet the soldiers of Ḫatta (Heth), and set (the cities) of the king my lord on fire. And may the king my lord know, and may the king (my) lord give field-soldiers. And we will occupy the cities of the king my lord, and we will dwell in the cities of the king my lord, my god, my sungod.”

This and two other accounts, one of which is from “Ilu-dâya, the Ḫazite,” all agree, and show that three [pg 289] officials were occupying cities in the territory known as Amki (identified with 'Amq, a plain by Antioch, or 'Amqa, N.E. of Akka), when Edagama (whose name also appears as Etagama, Etakkama, Itatkama, Itakama, Aiṭugama, and Aidaggama) joined the Hittite troops who were hostile to Egypt. It was in consequence of this, in all probability, that the three officials decided to write to the king of Egypt to let him know how things were going, and this they did in identical terms, with the same expressions, and the same peculiarities of spelling, pointing to the probability that the same scribe wrote all three communications. In the letter of Ili-rabiḫ, from which a quotation is given on p. [288], Amki is called “the king's territory,” implying that it was a tract acknowledging Egyptian supremacy, which Etagama was trying to wrest from the Pharaoh's grasp. It was the king's friends who were occupying the king's cities (as Bêri, Ilu-dâya, and the unknown writer call them), because they desired to hold them against this active enemy. With help from the Egyptian king, they thought that they would be able to do this without difficulty. There seems to be (as far as can at present be judged) no reason to suppose that the beginning of the expulsion of the Egyptians from Palestine was due to the over-zeal of the supporters of Egyptian rule in that country, who, striving to extend the influence and the dominions of their suzerain, drew down upon him, and upon themselves, the hostility of all the independent states of Western Asia, as well as of those which wished to throw off the Egyptian yoke. The Egyptian kings would surely have warned their vassals in Palestine against the danger of such action on their part.

As an additional light upon the events here referred to, the following extract from a letter from Akizzi of Qaṭna to Amenophis III. may be of interest:—

“O lord, Teu(w)atti of the city L(apa)n(a) and Arzauia of the city Ruḫizzu are setting themselves [pg 290] with Aiṭugama (Etagama) and the land of (U)be. He is burning the territory of my lord with fire.

“O lord, as I love the king my lord, and likewise the king of the land Nuḫašše, the king of the land of Nî, the king of the land of Zinzar, and the king of the land of Tunanat; and all these kings are for the king my lord serviceable.

“If the king my lord will, then he will go forth. (But they say) thus: ‘The king my lord will not go forth.’ Then let my lord send out field-troops, and let them come, since this land, as also, my lord, these kings, is well disposed towards him. (They are) my lord's great ones, and whatever their gifts (contributions), let him speak, and they will give (them).

“O lord, if this land is to be off the mind of my lord, then let my lord send forth field-troops, and let them come. The messengers of my lord have arrived.

“O lord, if Arzauia of the city of Ruḫizzu and Teuwatti of the city Lapana remain in the land of Ube, and Daša remain in the land of Amki, then may my lord know concerning them, that the land of Ube is not my lord's. They send to Aiṭugama every day saying thus: ‘Come and take the land of Ube completely.’

“O lord, as the city Timašgi in the land of Ube is at thy feet, so also is the city Qaṭna at thy feet. And, my lord, with regard to my messenger, I ask for life, (and a)s I do not fear with regard to the field-troops of my lord, that the field-troops of my lord will come, as he will send (them) forth to me, I shall re(tire) into the city Qaṭna.”

Thus the trouble spread, and the Hittites and their allies took possession of the territories south of the tracts referred to, trying, at the same time, to win over to their side the governors who were faithful. All this time posing as a friend of the Pharaoh, Etagama complained of the others, particularly Namya-waza, one of Egypt's most trustworthy allies, who, in a [pg 291] letter couched in the usual humble style of the period, announces his readiness to serve “with his horses and chariots, and with his brothers, and with his SA-GAS, and with his Sutites, along with the hired soldiers, whithersoever the king his lord should command him.”

Now in this letter there is one noteworthy fact, and that is, that the SA-GAS and the Sutites are mentioned together as the allies of an important vassal of the Egyptian king, the latter being apparently wandering hordes of plunderers (see above, p. [283]), whom Kadašman-Muruš, king of Babylonia, sent from east to west “until there were no more.” This took place at a somewhat later date, so that they still roamed about the eastern portion of the country, between Palestine and Babylonia, apparently giving their services to any power which might desire to make use of them.

The question of the identification of the troops or bands of warriors designated by the Akkadian compound SA-GAS is, however, of still greater importance. Most Assyriologists regard them as being identical with the Ḫabiri, mentioned in the letters of Abdi-tâbu or Ebed-tob. This, of course, is possible, but it is unfortunate that no direct confirmation of this identification exists. In the bilingual lists of Babylonia and Assyria, the expression SA-GAS, duly provided with the determinative prefix indicating a man or a class of men, occurs, and is always translated by the word ḳabbatu, the probable meaning of which is “robber,” from the root ḫabātu, “to plunder”. It is also noteworthy that there is a star called SA-GAS, and this is likewise rendered by the same word, namely, ḫabbatu. The fact that it is once provided with the determinative ki (“place”) does not help us, for this may be simply an oversight or a mannerism of the scribe. Moreover, the difficulty of identifying the SA-GAS with the Ḫabiri of the inscriptions of Abdi-ṭâba is increased [pg 292] by the word occurring in these texts (Winckler's No. 216, l. 11), followed by the explanation (amēlūti ḫabati), an arrangement which we find in others of these letters, when an ideograph has to be explained; and when they are, as here, Akkadian ideographs and Babylonian words, the second is always the pronunciation of the first—never the alternative reading. Indeed, in the present case, such an explanation would be misleading instead of helpful (were the word SA-GAS to be read Ḫabiri), for the scribe tells you to read it ḫabati—the same word as is given in the bilingual lists, but spelled with one b instead of two.

In all probability, therefore, the ḫabati were wandering hordes differing from the Sutites in not having any special nationality, and being composed of the offscourings of many peoples of the ancient East. They were probably included in the ḫabiri, together with the nations with which they were afterwards associated. The ḫabiri were not the Hebrews, neither the word nor the date being what we should expect for that nationality, who were still in Egypt. The best identification as yet published is that of Jastrow, who connects it with the Hebrew Heber, the patronymic of various persons. Better still, however, would be the Heb. ḥaber, pl. haberim, “companions,” also used of tribes joined together to form a nation. Whether an advance guard of the Hebrews is to be included in this term or not, must be left to the judgment of the student.

The gradual loss of the districts south of Damascus in all probability followed. A letter from Mut-Addu (the only one from him) to Yanḫamu speaks of the cities of the land of Garu (identified—though the identification is not quite satisfactory—with the Heb. Gur), namely Udumu (identified by Petrie with Adamah, though the form does not agree so well as might be wished, and Udumu is the usual way of rendering the word Edom, which is referred to in the [pg 293] cuneiform inscriptions both as a land and a city), Aduri (Petrie: et-Tireh), Araru (Petrie: Arareh), Meštu (Petrie: Mushtah), Magdali (Magdala), Ḫini-anabi (Ain-anab, if rightly identified—there is a certain difficulty in the word possessing a guttural at the beginning and not likewise as the first letter of the second component—probably 'Anab, south-west of Hebron, the Anab of Josh. xi. 21), and Sarki. At this time, according to the tablet, Hawani and Yabiši (Jabesh) had been captured. It is probably on account of the occupation of the country by so many hostile tribes that the protest of Burra-buriaš of Babylonia (see p. [281]) was sent, but it was in all probability exceedingly difficult for the Egyptian king to afford any protection whatever to the caravans which passed through the disaffected area.

One of the things which the Tel-el-Amarna letters show very clearly is, that it must have been very difficult for the Pharaoh to know who were his friends and who were his enemies among the rulers of the Philistines. The Amorite Abdi-Aširta and his allies were from the first desirous to throw off the Egyptian yoke, but this prince at the same time constantly sent letters to Amenophis IV. protesting his fidelity. Other chiefs who were hostile to Egypt are Etakama, the sons of Lab'aya, Milkîli, Yapa-Addu, Zimrêda of Sidon, Aziru, and others. On the king's side were Namyawaza, who held Kumidi (Petrie: Kamid-el-Lauz), Rib-Addi, whose chief cities were Gebal, Beyrout, and Simyra, Zimrêda of Lachish, and Abdi-ṭâba of Jerusalem. Numbers of chiefs, at first faithful, went over to the enemy when they saw the success of the league against the foreign power.

It is impossible to suppose that the letters now known (about three hundred in number) represent all the correspondence which passed between Palestine and Egypt concerning the state of the country during the reigns of Amenophis III. and IV., and from the [pg 294] time the troubles there commenced, complaints and applications for help must have claimed the attention of the Egyptian translator literally in shoals. One of the most remarkable of these is the letter from the people of Dunip, who say that, in consequence of the state of things in Palestine, they belong no longer to the king of Egypt, to whom they had been sending for twenty years, but their messengers had been retained. Their prince (to all appearance) had been taken back to Egypt by the king's orders, after he had allowed him to return to his country, so that they had not seen him again. “And now Dunip, thy city, weeps, and its tears flow, and there is no one to take our hands (i.e. help us). We have sent to the king, the lord, the king of Egypt, and not a single word from our lord hath reached us.”

Were they really sorry to be no longer under Egyptian rule? or were they merely desirous that their prince should be restored to them?

During this period, naturally enough, recriminations were going on on every side. Those who were faithful very properly made complaints and uttered warnings concerning those who were unfaithful. The waverers, the unfaithful, and the hostile, on the other hand, were continually asserting their fidelity, and accusing those who were really well-disposed towards Egypt of all kinds of hostile acts against the supreme power. This is evident from the correspondence of Abdi-ṭâba of Jerusalem, who, in one of his letters, writes as follows—

“(T)o the king my lord say also thus: ‘It is Abdi-ṭâba, thy servant. At the feet of my lord the king twice seven times and twice seven times I fall. What have I done against the king my lord? They back-bite—they slander[67] me before the king my lord, (saying): “Abdi-ṭâba has fallen away from the king [pg 295] his lord.” Behold, (as for) me, neither my father nor my mother set me in this place—the arm of the mighty king caused me to enter into the house of my father. Why should I commit a sin against the king my lord? As the king my lord lives, I said to the commissioner of the king (my) lord: “Why love ye the Ḫabiri and hate the gover(nors)? it is on account of this that they utter slander before the king my lord.” Then he said: “The countries of the king my lord have rebelled, therefore they utter slander to the king my lord.” ’ ”

The ruler of Jerusalem then seems to say, that the king had placed a garrison in some city or other, but it had been taken, apparently by Yanḫamu—there was no longer a garrison (in that place). The king's cities under Ili-milku had revolted, the whole of the land of the king was lost, so let the king have care for his land. He would like to go to the king, to urge him to take action, but the people in his district were too mighty for him, and he could not leave it. As long as the king lived, and as long as he sent a commissioner, he would continue to give warning. If troops were sent that year, things would be saved, otherwise the king's lands would be lost. Abdi-ṭâba ends with an appeal to the scribe to place the matter clearly before the king.

Another very important letter from Abdi-ṭâba is as follows—

“(T)o the king my lord, (my) Sun, (say also) thus: ‘It is Abdi-ṭâba, thy servant. Twice seven times and twice seven times I fall down before the feet of the king my lord. Behold, the king my lord has set his name to the rising of the sun and the setting of the sun. The slandering which they slander against me! Behold, I am not a governor, the king my lord's magnate. Behold, I am an officer of the king, and have brought the tribute of the king. (As for) me, it was not my father nor my mother—it was the arm of the [pg 296] mighty king who set me in the house of my father. (When so and so),[68] the commissioner of the king, returned to me, 13 prisoners (?) (and a certain number[69]) of slaves I gave. Šûta, the commissioner of the king, came (back t)o me; 21 girls (and) 20[70] (?) prisoners I gave (in)to the hand of Šûta (as) a gift for the king my lord. Let the king take counsel with regard to his land—the land of the king, all of it, has revolted, it has set itself against me.[71] Behold, (as for) the lands of Šêri (Seir) as far as Guti-kirmil (Gath-Carmel), the governors have allied themselves[72] and there is hostility against me. Even though one be a seer, one wishes not to see the tears of the king my lord, when enmity exists against me. As long as ships were in the midst of the sea, the power of the mighty king took Naḫrima (Naharaim) and the land of Kašsi,[73] but now the Ḫabiru have taken the cities of the king. There is not one governor for the king my lord—all have rebelled. Behold, Turbazu has been killed at the gate of the city Zilû, (and) the king (?) remained inactive. Behold, (as for) Zimrêda of the city of Lakisu (Lachish), (his) servants lay in wait for him (?), they took (him) to kill (?) (him). Yapti'-Addu has been killed (at) the gate of the city of Zilû, (and) the king remained inactive ... ask (?) him ... (let) the kin(g have care for his land, and let) the king give attention ... (let him send) troops to the land of (the city of Jerusalem, (?), and) if there are not troops this year, the whole of the lands of the king my lord are lost. They do not tell the king my lord (this). When the country of the king my lord is lost, then are lost (also) all the governors. If there be not troops this year, let the [pg 297] king direct his commissioner and let him take me—(send him) to me with my brothers, and we will die with the king my lord.’ (To the) scribe of the king my lord (say also thus): ‘It is Abdi-ṭâba, (thy) servant. (I fall down) at (thy) feet. Cause (my) words to enter (pl)ainly to the king (my lord). I am thy (faith)ful servant.’ ”

The final phrase resembles that of an English letter.

According to Petrie, Sêri is Shaaraim (Josh. xv. 36), now Khurbet es-Sairah. If the character read as gu in Guti-Kirmil (Winckler, Gin(?)ti-Kirmil) be correctly drawn in the official published copy, there is considerable doubt as to the reading of the first syllable of this interesting name. Zilû, where Turbazu and Yapti'-Addu were killed, is identified by Petrie with Zelah, north of Jerusalem. This letter gives an excellent illustration of the state of the country at the time.

In another letter Abdi-ṭâba explains how all the lands had concluded a bond of hostility against him, and the districts of Gezer, Askelon, and Lachish had supplied these people with food. After this comes the usual request for troops, and the indication that, if troops be sent “this year,” the situation would be saved—next year there would be neither countries nor governors for the king (in Palestine). “Behold, this land of the city of Jerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave it to me—the power of the mighty king gave it to me, (even) to me.” “See,” he continues, “this deed is the deed of Milki-îli, and the deed of the sons of Lab'aya, who have given the land of the king to the Ḫabiri.” He then goes on to speak of the Kaši, who seem to have supported the confederates with food, oil, and clothes. Next follows what Paura, the king's commissioner, had told him about the disaffection of Adaya. Caravans had been robbed in the field of the city of Yaluna (Ajalon), but [pg 298] Abdi-ṭâba could not prevent this: “(I mention this) in order to inform thee.” “Behold, the king has placed his name in the land of Jerusalem for ever, and the forsaking of the lands of Jerusalem is not possible.” After this comes the usual note to the scribe in Egypt, followed by a postscript referring to the people of Kâsi, disclaiming some evil deed which had been done to them. “Do not kill a worthy servant (on that account”).

Yet another letter refers to Milki-îli and Lab'aya: “Behold, has not Milki-îli fallen away from the sons of Lab'aya and from the sons of Arzawa to ask the land of the king for them?[74] A governor, who has done this deed, why has the king not called him to account for this?” The narrative breaks off where Abdi-ṭâba begins to relate something further concerning Milki-îli and another named Tagi. When the text again becomes legible, Abdi-ṭâba is again referring to the fact that there is no garrison of the king in some place whose name is lost. “Therefore—as the king lives—Puuru (= Pauru) has entered it—he has departed from my presence, (and) is in the city of Gaza. So let the king indicate to him (the necessity) of a garrison to protect the country. All the land of the king has rebelled. Send Ya'enḫamu (Yanḫamu), and let him become acquainted with (lit. let him know) the country of the king (i.e. the true state of affairs”). Here follows a note to the scribe in Egypt similar to that translated above.

One of the most interesting and instructive of the letters of Abdi-ṭâba is that which Petrie regards as the latest of the series; and on account of its importance, it is given in full here—

“(To) the king, my lord, (s)ay also thus: ‘It is [pg 299] (Abdi)-ṭâba thy servant. At the feet of the (ki)ng my lord twice seven times and twice seven times I fall down. (Behold, the deed) which Milki-îli and Šu-ardatum have done to the land of the king my lord has been successful (?). The men of the city of Gazri (Gezer), the men of the city of Gimti (Gath), and the men of the city of Kîlti (Keilah) have been captured. The land of the city of Rubute has revolted. The land of the king (belongs to) the Ḫabiri. And now, moreover, a city of the land of Jerusalem, the city Beth-Ninip (“House” or “Temple of Ninip”)—(this is) its name—has revolted to the people of Kîlti. Let the king hearken to Abdi-ṭâba thy servant, and let him send hired soldiers, and let me bring back the land of the king to the king. And if there be no hired soldiers, the land of the king will go over to the men, the Ḫabiri. This deed (is the deed of) Šu-ardatum (and) Milki-îli ... city ... and let the king care for his land.’ ”

Whether the fall of Jerusalem followed or not is doubtful; nor is it certain that the Egyptians were ultimately driven out. Other letters seem to show how the influence of those whom Abdi-ṭâba calls the Ḫabiri, and others the Ḫabati—the “confederates” and the “plunderers”—spread still farther southward. Naturally more information is required to enable it to be known in what manner the Egyptians tried to retrieve their position, and how it was that Amenophis IV. delayed so long the sending of troops. All the governors who were in the least degree faithful to Egypt united in repeatedly warning him as to what was taking place, and urging him to send troops. Had the rebellion or invasion—whichever it was—been nipped in the bud, Palestine would have remained a faithful Egyptian province. All the king did, however, was to send his commissioner, and, occasionally, exhorting and even threatening letters, which had in all probability little or no effect, except [pg 300] to excite a little mild amusement on account of their erratic spelling. A very noteworthy communication of this class is the following—

The King Of Egypt Rebukes The Prince Of The Amorites.

“(To) the Amorite say then thus, (‘It is the king’). The king thy lord (hath hear)d thus: ‘The Gebalite whose brother drove him from the gate (hath spoke)n to thee thus: “Take me and cause me to enter into my city, (and a reward) then let me give thee—yea, however much, (though) it be not with me.” Thus did he speak to thee.’

“Writest thou (no)t to the king thy lord (th)us: ‘I am thy servant like all the former governors who (were each) in the midst of his city’? But thou doest wrong to receive a governor whose brother hath driven him from his gate out of his city.

“And (whilst) dwelling in Sidon, thou deliveredst him to the governors as was thy will. Knewest thou not the hatred of the people?

“If thou be in truth a servant of the king, why hast thou not made possible his transmission to the presence of the king thy lord, (saying) thus: ‘This governor sent to me thus: “Take me to thee, and cause me to enter into my city” ’?

“And if thou hast done according to right, then all the matters are not true concerning which thou wrotest: ‘They are trustworthy,’ for the king thought thus: ‘All that thou hast said is not correct.’

“And behold, the king hath heard thus: Thou art in agreement with the man of Kidša (Kadesh), food and drink together have ye supplied. And be it true, why doest thou thus? why art thou in agreement with a man with whom the king is on bad terms? And if thou hast done according to right, and hast regard to thy opinion, then his opinion [pg 301] existeth not. Thou hast no care for the things which thou hast done from the first. What hath been done to thee among them (the disaffected ones), that thou art not with the king thy lord?

“Behold, those who attract(?) thee to themselves seek to throw thee into the fire; and it is kindled, and thou findest everything very satisfactory.

“And if thou do homage to the king thy lord, what is there which the king would not do for thee? If on account of anything thou wish to work evil, and if thou set evil, and words of hate, in thine heart, then by the king's ax shalt thou die, together with all thy family.

“So do homage to the king thy lord, and thou shalt live. And thou knowest, even thou, that the king desireth not to attack the land of Kinaḫḫi (Canaan), the whole of it.

“And as thou hast sent thus: ‘Let the king leave me this year, and let me come in the second year before the king, my lord—my son is not here to ...;’ behold, then, the king thy lord will grant thee this year, according as thou hast said. Come thou (or if thy son, send), and thou shalt see the king at the sight of whom all the lands live. And say not thus: ‘Let him leave me this year in addition.’ If it be not possible to go into the presence of the king thy lord, direct thy son to the king thy lord instead. He (need) not (stay with thee), let him come.

“And, behold, the king thy lord hath heard that thou hast written to the king thus: ‘Let the king my lord allow Ḫanni, the king's messenger, to come a second time and let me cause the enemies of the king to be taken back by his hand.’ Behold, he hath come to thee, as thou hast said, and leave not one of them behind. Behold, the king thy lord causeth to be brought to thee the names of the enemies of the king in this letter at the hands of Ḫanni, the king's messenger, so cause them to be brought to the [pg 302] king thy lord, and do not leave one of them (behind). And brazen bonds shall be placed on their feet. Behold, the men whom thou shalt cause to be sent to the king thy lord (are):

“Šarru with all his sons;

Tûya;

Lêya with all his sons;

Wišyari with all his sons;

The son-in-law of Mania (or Ma-ili-ia) with his sons, (and) with his wives;

The pa-maḳâ of Ḫanni the pa-itêiu (? messenger) who reads (this) message;

Dâ-šartî; Pâlûma;

Nimmaḫê, the ḳapadu in the land of Amurru.

“ ‘And mayest thou know: well is the king, like the Sun in Heaven; his soldiers and chariots are many. From the upper country as far as the lower country, (from) sunrise as far as sunset (i.e. from the extreme east to the extreme west), great is the prosperity.’ ”

To all appearance Amenophis IV. trusted too much to his own prestige, and that of the country over which he ruled. He was “the son of the Sun,” “like unto the Sun in Heaven,” “the king at the sight of whom all the lands live,” and naturally took it for granted that he was everywhere looked upon with the same veneration as in his own country.

---

As may easily be imagined, the expulsion of the Egyptians from Palestine left the country in a very disturbed state, and marauding bands, having no longer anything to do in the way of wresting territory from the Egyptians, must have given considerable trouble to the native princes and governors, now once more independent in their own territories.

The loss of Palestine, on the other hand, probably brought with it a certain amount of loss of prestige [pg 303] to Egypt, which must have endured for some time. In any case, the Egyptian kings who succeeded Amenophis IV. seem to have made no attempt to regain the lost provinces.

Ankh-kheperu-Ra, the king who succeeded the ruler just named, lived for a while at Tel-el-Amarna, during which time, in all probability, the tomb of his predecessor's six daughters was finished. Several rings of this king exist, on two of which he calls himself “beloved of Nefer-kheperu-Ra” (or, in accordance with the indications of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets: Nafar-khoperu-Ria) and “beloved of Ua-en-Ra,” names of Amenophis IV. During his reign the worship of the sun's disc (Aten, or, if the derivation from the Semitic Adon, “lord,” be correct, Aton) began to give way to that of the national gods of Egypt. He reigned thirteen years (1365-1353 b.c.), and was succeeded by Ra-kheperu-neb (1353-1344). The paintings in the tomb of Hui at Thebes show that tribute was still received from the Syrians (Rutennu), as well as from the people of Kush in the Soudan. Evidently the road was being paved for the conquest of the lost provinces of Syria.

After this came a ruler who seems to have held the throne only on account of his wife being of royal blood. According to Petrie, he was “divine father Ay,” and his wife's name was Ty. He reigned thirteen years (1344-1332 b.c.). During his reign a complete reversion to the old worship took place.

Ay's successor, Ra-ser-kheperu (Hor-em-heb), 1332-1328 b.c., was apparently also a commoner, and is identified (Petrie) with the Hor-em-heb who was general in an earlier reign. He is represented being adored by negroes and Asiatics.

One or two other obscure names occur, and then begins the reign of king Rameses I., who came to the throne about 1300 b.c. This reign was short enough, but there is hardly any doubt that in it the [pg 304] prosperity of Egypt was renewed. From the treaty of the Khita with Rameses II., the grandson of Rameses I., we learn that the latter had a war with the Khita, and from the fact that he founded a storehouse for the temple of his divine father Hor-khem, and filled it with captive men-servants and maid-servants, we may conclude that he was fairly successful in his warlike expeditions.

With his son, Seti (Sethos) I., or Meneptah (“beloved of Ptah”), we attain firmer ground. In the very first year of his reign he warred in the east, among the Shasu Bedouin, “from the fortress of Khetam (Heb. Etham) in the land of Zalu, as far as Kan'ana (Canaan).” Kadesh, at that time a city of the Kheta (it had apparently fallen into the hands of the Hittites during the reign of Amenophis IV.), was conquered by him. Not only the Hittites, however, but also Naharain (Naharaim), the country of which Dušratta of old had been king, upper and lower Rutennu (Canaan and North Syria), Sinjar, the island of Cyprus, and Cappadocia, felt the force of his arms. His son, Rameses II., was associated with him on the throne, and afterwards succeeded him. This took place about 1300 b.c. It is to this ruler that the glory of the name of Rameses is principally due, and his grandfather, the first who bore it, shines mainly with a reflected light.

It is impossible here to do more than touch upon such of the details of his career as are essential in the present work. In all probability he is best known on account of his expedition into Syria, and the conquest of the Hittites, who, as recorded in the celebrated heroic poem of Pentaur, were allied with a number of other tribes, including the people of Naharaim, Aleppo, Gauzanitis, the Girgashites (?), Carchemish, etc. The result was success for the Egyptian arms, and the Hittites, on the whole, submitted, though some of the towns acknowledging [pg 305] Hittite rule, notably Tunep, refused to accept Egyptian suzerainty, necessitating another expedition, the result of which was, that the Egyptians found no more opposition to their overlordship. In his eighth and succeeding years he fought against the Canaanites, and in his descriptions of his operations there, many familiar names are to be found—names of great interest to all students of ancient Oriental history. It was in his eighth year, according to the texts in the Ramesseum, that he conquered Shalam (Salamis W. of Capernaum, according to Prof. Flinders Petrie), Marom (Merom), the spring of Anamimi (identified with Anamim), Dapur (identified with Tabor by Brugsch), and many other places.

Rameses II. is generally regarded as the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and one of the tasks placed upon the oppressed Israelites was the building of his store-cities, Pithom (Pi-tum, discovered by M. Naville when excavating for the Egypt Exploration Fund) and Raamses, the Pi-Ramessu of the inscriptions, concerning which there is a very interesting letter by an Egyptian named Panbesa, who visited it. As Brugsch says: “We may suppose that many a Hebrew, perhaps Moses himself, jostled the Egyptian scribe in his wandering through the gaily-dressed streets of the temple-city.”

The successor of Rameses, Meneptah II., is hardly the son which one would expect to follow such a father. According to Brugsch, he does not rank with those Pharaohs who transmitted their remembrance to posterity by grand buildings and the construction of new temples. And the monolith found by Petrie in 1896 seems to imply that his lists of conquests were not always so trustworthy as could be wished. Nevertheless, the reign of Meneptah is one of the greatest importance, for it was he, to all appearance, who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, as seems also to be proved by the same document. As this is a [pg 306] text of the very first importance, a translation of the concluding lines is given here—

“Kheta (the land of the Hittites) is in peace, captive is Canaan and full of misery, Askelon is carried away, Gezer is taken, Yennuamma is non-existent, Israel is lost, his seed is not,[75] Syria is like the widows of Egypt. The totality of all the lands is at peace, for whoever rebelled was chastised by king Meneptah.”

Now the statement concerning Israel has given rise to a considerable amount of discussion. Naville regards the reference to the condition in which the Israelites were as indicating that they had left Egypt, and were wandering, “lost” in the desert. There is also some probability that the expression, “his seed is not,” may be a reference to the decree of the king, who commanded the destruction of the male children of the Hebrews, which command, he may have imagined, had been finally carried out. The question also naturally arises, whether the last phrase, “whoever rebelled was chastised by king Meneptah,” may not have a reference to the Israelites, who, from their own showing, were sufficiently peremptory in their demands to be allowed to proceed into the wilderness to sacrifice to their god, to bring down upon themselves any amount of resentment.

Exceedingly noteworthy, and in many respects startling, however, are the researches and statements of Dr. Edouard Mahler. Following Spiegelberg as to the meaning of the phrase containing the name of the Israelites, “Jenoam has been brought to naught; Israel, the horde, destroyed his crops”—a statement which hardly seems worthy of the honour of being inscribed on the memorial stele of a king of Egypt—is the rendering he suggests. The translation of the word feket (which is rendered by other Egyptologists as “annihilated, lost,” or in some similar way) by [pg 307] “horde,” allows the learned chronologist to suggest, that the ideographs accompanying the word Israelites indicate that they had already entered the Holy Land, and were trying to obtain a foothold there.

Having made these statements, he proceeds to examine the whole question. He asserts the correctness of the view, that Amosis, the founder of the eighteenth dynasty, was the prince who knew not Joseph. The first king of this new dynasty, he calculates, came to the throne two years after Joseph's death. With regard to the reign of Rameses II., he refers to the festival of the Sothis period which was celebrated in the thirtieth year of his reign. Starting from this period,[76] which, according to Oppolzer, was renewed in the year 1318 b.c., he calculates that the first year of Rameses II. was 1347 b.c., and that the Exodus took place in his thirteenth year, i.e. 1335 b.c.

According to the Pirke di Rabbi Elieser, Dr. Mahler says, the departure of the Israelites is said to have taken place on a Thursday. “This view is also held in the Talmud (cf. Sabbath 87B), and the Shulchan-Aroch also maintains that the 15th Nisan, the day of the Exodus, was a Thursday. This all agrees with the year b.c. 1335, for in that year the 15th Nisan fell on a Thursday, and indeed on Thursday the 27th of March (Julian calendar).”

If we accept the theory that Rameses II. was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and that the Exodus took place in 1335 b.c., then Moses, who was eighty years old at the time of the Exodus, must have been born in the year 1415 b.c., i.e. the fifteenth year of Amenophis III. Now the chief wife of this ruler was queen Teie (see p. [275]), a woman who was certainly [pg 308] of foreign, probably Asiatic, race. In all probability, therefore, Teie, being an alien and of a different religion from the Egyptians, was not by any means in favour with the Egyptian priesthood, however much the Pharaoh may have delighted in her. The daughter of such a woman, as will easily be understood, would find little or no opposition to the adoption by her of a child of one of the Hebrews, an Asiatic like her mother. This, of course, would explain excellently how it was that Moses came to be adopted and educated by an Egyptian princess at her father's court, and that he had no real sympathy with the people among whom he lived, though it raises somewhat of a difficulty, for it is hard to understand how the Egyptian king, sympathizing, as we may expect him to have done, with Asiatics, should have ordered the destruction of their children. Nevertheless, circumstances may easily have arisen to cause such a decree to be issued. Another difficulty is, to explain who the people hostile to Moses were, who in the thirteenth year of Rameses II. died (Exod. iv. 19). This has generally been understood to be the king and one or more of his advisers, though this objection, like the other, really presents no difficulty worthy of the name, as there was no indication that the king was included.

Of course there is no statement to the effect that Pharaoh was killed with his army by the returning flood after the Israelites crossed the Red Sea (in Ps. cxxxvi. 15 he must be regarded as having been overwhelmed therein in the persons of his warriors, who suffered the fate which ought to have stricken also the king), so that little or no difficulty exists in this portion of the narrative.[77] On the other hand, a difficulty is got rid of if we suppose that the Exodus [pg 309] took place in the time of Rameses II. Dr. Mahler points out, that Meneptah was succeeded by his son and heir, User-kheperu-Ra', who did not die, but reigned thirty-three years. The eldest sons of Rameses II., on the other hand, all died during their father's lifetime, and it was the fourteenth of his numerous progeny who ultimately came to the throne.

Dr. Mahler clinches the matter by making the plague of darkness to have been a solar eclipse.

Whatever may be the defects of Dr. Mahler's seductive theory, it must be admitted that it presents fewer difficulties than any other that has yet been put forward, and on that account deserves special attention.

[pg 310]

---

Chapter IX. The Nations With Whom The Israelites Came Into Contact.

The Amorites—The Hittites—The Jebusites—The Girgashites—Moab.