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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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,” 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 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 __ 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 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 “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, 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 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 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 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 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.