points as these, or to notice their historical development; so that we must gather our information respecting them from such occasional data as we possess, just as we are obliged to do in the case of the patriarchs themselves (§ 5 sqq.). On the other hand we must equally bear in mind the fact, that to an Israelite the theocratic legislation at Sinai appeared so much like a new creation on the part of Jehovah, that he lost sight altogether of the other, viz., the natural side of that legislation, that is to say, of its connexion with any manners, customs, and circumstances, which had existed before. And however little we may regard the giving of the law at Sinai as a Deus ex machina, however we may be disposed to recognise the important bearing of previous circumstances upon that legislation, we can easily understand how an Israelitish historian might overlook that importance, and undervalue the human basis, on account of the high estimate which he formed of the part performed by God in the giving of the law.

(3). From the census taken at Sinai (Num. i.) it appeared, that the whole number of men, "from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war in Israel,” was 603,550. If to these we add 400,000 male children under twenty years of age, and suppose the females to have been about as numerous as the males, we find that the entire mass of the people of Israel amounted to more than two million souls. But it is a gross mistake to suppose that the two millions were all the direct descendants of Jacob. When Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt, they must certainly have taken with them all their men-servants and maid-servants, as well as all their cattle, for these formed a portion of their wealth. We have no information as to the exact number of the latter. But we know that Abraham had 318 servants fit for war and trained to arms; his nomadic household, therefore, must have contained more than a thousand souls. Jacob, again, who inherited all these, brought with him from Syria so many men-servants and maid-servants, and so much cattle, that, when he was afraid of an attack from Esau, he divided them into two armies. With such data as these, then, we are justifea in assuming that the number of those who went down wi' Jacob to Egypt was not limited to his sixty-six child ... and grandchildren, but consisted of several thousand en-servants and maid-servants. But according to Gen. xvii. 12, 13, these had been all received by circumcision into the re

ligious community of the children of Israel, and thus the distinction between master and servant, which is never very marked among nomads, must have been still further softened down. In Egypt, where the striking contrast between Israelites and Egyptians was necessarily a great impediment in the way of intermarriages, the descendants of Jacob will no doubt have married the descendants of his servants. And under such circumstances the distinction must gradually have worn away. Hence we regard the two million souls, who left Egypt after the lapse of 430 years, as the posterity of the whole of the people who went down into Egypt with Jacob. But even then, this increase to two millions would be unparalleled in history. We must look upon this fact therefore in the light of divine providence, and regard it as a special blessing from God, the fulfilment of the promise given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In addition to this we may also quote both ancient and modern witnesses, who all agree, that the productiveness of both men and animals is far greater in Egypt than elsewhere. Aristotle, for example, says (hist. animal. 7. 4): Πολλάκις καὶ πολλαχοῦ τίκτουσι γυναῖκες) οἷον περὶ Αἴγυπτον, τίκτουσι δὲ καὶ τρία καὶ τέτταρα, πλεῖστα δὲ τίκτεται πέντε τὸν ἄριθμον, ἠδὴ γὰρ ὦπται καὶ τοῦτο kai Étì Theióvev. Columella writes to the same effect (de re ἐπὶ πλειόνων. rust. 3, 8): Aegyptiis et Afris gemini partus familiares et paene solemnes sunt; and Pliny (hist. nat. 7, 3): Et in Aegypto septenos uno utero simul gigni, auctor est Trogus. For more modern accounts consult Rosenmüller's altes und neues Morgenland i. p. 252. From this we may see that, even if we deduct something from the accounts as being greatly exaggerated, Egypt must in this respect have been peculiarly fitted for effecting the purpose, which it was intended to accomplish in connexion with the house of Israel.

(4). We are of opinion that the statement in chap. i. 8: "there arose a NEW KING in Egypt who knew not Joseph," indicates not merely a change of government within the same dynasty, but the suppression of a former dynasty. It was so understood by Josephus (ant. ii. 9. 1.: Tŷs Baoiλeías eis äλλov οἶκον μετεληλυθυίας); and the following reasons lead us to the same conclusion. (1). The word requires it. Let any one take a concordance in his hand, and he will find that and when used in such a connexion, always denote an entirely

הקים

קים

fresh commencement, and never a regular advance of the same description, or a renewal of something which existed before. (2). This explanation is supported by the expression, y

יָדַע לא

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

2

ידע

ידע

mighty, and the land was filled with them; and there arose up a new king, &c." In this passage all the kings, who reigned from the time of Joseph to the period in question, are evidently placed together under one point of view, and in a common relation to the new king. The new king must therefore have been new, in a totally different sense from that in which every one of the successors of the earlier Pharaoh had been a new king. In the writer's view they all formed one Melech, in contrast with the king, who now came to the throne; i.e., they were one dynasty by the side of the founder of a new dynasty. In support of this, also, we may appeal to Deut. xxviii. 36: "Jehovah will bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee," into subjection to a foreign nation. The general and particular use of the word Melech are here fused together. For the meaning of the legislator was evidently not that the very person, whom the people should first set over the kingdom, would be led into captivity, but that the government, which the people would establish in connection with the theocratic constitution, should go into captivity in the person of one of its administrators.-Although Hengstenberg maintains, in his Egypt and the Books of Moses (p. 252 transl.), that “the reason why the king is called new is given in the phrase, 'who knew not Joseph;"" every unbiassed reader must at once perceive, that the very reverse is the truth, namely that he knew not Joseph just because he was a new king.

For the history of the Israelites, it is of no importance whatever in what sense the king, who began to oppress them, was a new king. The question is of more importance, for the determination of contemporaneous events in connexion with the history of Egypt. And if our explanation be correct, we have a most important datum in Ex. i. 8, which may serve us as an Ariadnethread in the confused labyrinth of Egyptian history and chronology. But we shall return to this question again. (Vid. § 45. 4).

(5). The TRIBUTARY SERVICE, which the Israelites were forced to render, consisted chiefly in brick-making and field-labour. By the latter we are undoubtedly to understand the severe labour of watering the land in the more elevated districts (see § 15. 2); and from the former we learn that the Israelites were employed both in the erection of the colossal monuments, and in the building of cities and fortresses (Ex. i. 11: Pithom and Raemses, vid. § 41. 2). The preparation of the incalculable

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