Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: March 29
Today is: Tuesday, April 23rd, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of March: (Show All Months)
Gen_43:16-34
There are in this some intimations that deserve attention. One is, that even in the metropolitan city, animals are slaughtered at home, instead of the meat being purchased in the market. This seems hard to understand. In a village or small town, we might explain it by supposing that there being no demand sufficient to carry off, so promptly as a warm climate requires, any animal that might be killed for sale, none were so killed, but every one who wished for a joint of meat, had to slay an animal in order to obtain it. This we have often witnessed; but it can hardly apply to a great city. Yet, even in a large city, we have known a gentleman who wished to give an English entertainment, obliged to purchase an ox, and have it slain on his own premises. This was simply, that beef was not eaten by the people, and therefore not to be found in the market of even a large town. We should have been almost inclined to think that Joseph was minded to give his brethren an entertainment different from that which the markets of Egypt would supply, but such as they had known in Canaan; were it not, that the fact of cattle being killed in the premises where an entertainment is given, is proved to have been usual by the subsisting monuments of Egypt. the cause of this remarkable circumstance, which seems to imply, that what we call butcher’s meat, was not to be had at shops or market, remains to be found. We have representations of poultry-men’s shops, but whenever we find the slaying of quadrupeds for food, it is in a private house. It may be that, as there is indeed reason to believe, poultry, fish, and vegetables formed the chief food of the people, and that flesh-meat was seldom used but at entertainments, which created a demand so uncertain and irregular, as to deter any tradesman from attempting to supply it, in a land where meat will not keep more than a few hours. It may be also, that they desired the blood for their culinary operations. It was clearly received in vessels for this purpose; and it is probably with reference to this Egyptian practice, that the use of blood was by the law forbidden to the Israelites. Note: Deu_15:23. The prohibition was, however, also of earlier date, although thus renewed. See Gen_9:4.
From all the representations that exist, it is, then, seen to have been the custom in Egypt, in conformity with the incidental intimation of the fact here given, to take the animal into a court-yard near the house; to tie its four legs together, and then to throw it upon the ground. In this position it was held by one or more persons, while the butcher, sharpening his broad knife upon a steel attached to his apron, proceeded to cut the throat, as nearly as possible from one ear to the other, sometimes continuing the opening downward along the throat. The head was then taken off, and was usually given away to some poor person, unless there were foreigners to whom it could be sold. They then proceeded to flay the animal, beginning with the head and the neck; and the carcass being then cut up, the joints were taken in trays to the kitchen, where the cook seems to have at once commenced his operations upon them. This last fact is indeed implied, in the narrative before us, as the meat that was to be eaten at noon, had still to be killed in the forenoon when Joseph gave this order. This mode of dressing meat before the warmth of life has passed from it, is almost necessary in a hot climate. This is partly shown in the practice of our own butchers, who, in winter, kill their animals several days before they cut up the carcasses, but, in summer, kill only the day before, or even the same morning. These matters are determined by habit and climate; and the Orientals, under such influence, think as hardly of our practice as we can do of theirs; for they regard with disgust and abhorrence, the length of time meat is kept by Europeans before it is cooked. In their view, it is no better than carrion. One consequence is, however, that meat dressed so soon after killing, requires to be completely over-dressed in order to be tender; and from this arises some of the most peculiar forms of eastern cookery. Note: Those of our readers who desire to acquaint themselves further with the details of Egyptian culinary operations, should consult Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, ii. 364-406.
It is stated, that on their arrival at the house, Joseph’s brethren had water brought with which to wash their feet. This custom we have already had occasion to notice. Note: Eighth Week—Tuesday. Yet it is known from ancient writers, that they washed their hands before dinner; but the washing of the feet was probably confined to those who desired it, or who had come from a journey. There are, indeed, no representations of these operations in any of the ancient Egyptian paintings; but ewers, not unlike those used at the present day, are represented, with the basins belonging to them, in the paintings of a Theban tomb. It is certain that basins were kept for the purpose of washing the hands and feet of the guests, and that in the houses of the rich they were of gold. Herodotus mentions a gold basin belonging to Amasis, which he and the guests who dined with him used for washing their feet. But it is probable, that those who lived near their host, were expected to perform their ablutions before they left home, and this, perhaps, accounts for no representations of the process being shown in the paintings.
It will also be observed, that the dining hour was noon, an hour which, although in many respects inconvenient, as coming in the midst of the day’s labor, has singularly maintained its place as that in which the great mass of people in most nations take their principal meal. It is probable, however, that, like the Romans, they also ate supper in the evening, as is still the custom in the East.
The table used by the ancient Egyptians, is very similar to that of the present day in Egypt. This is a small stool supporting a round tray, on which the dishes are placed. These tables were sometimes brought in and removed with the dishes upon them. Occasionally, each guest had a table to himself. From the mention of persons sitting in rows, according to rank, it has been supposed by some that the tables were of a long figure. This, Wilkinson thinks, may sometimes have been the case in Egypt, even during the Pharaonic period, since the brethren of Joseph sat before him, the “first-born according to his birth-right, and the youngest according to his youth,” Joseph himself eating alone at another table. We quite agree, however, with this writer, in thinking it by no means certain, that the table was in this instance long, or in any way different from their usual round table, since people might even then be seated according to their rank, and the similar modern Egyptian table is not without its post of honor, and fixed gradation of rank.
The brethren are represented as sitting at table. Hengstenberg, in his clever book on Egypt and the Books of Moses, notes here a variation from the patriarchal practice of reclining. We have some doubt that the text to which he refers, Gen_18:4, “rest yourselves,” will bear the stress he lays upon it. But it is certain from the monuments that the Egyptians did, as has been represented, sit at meals. All the modes of sitting upon the ground now in use in the East—cross-legged, crouching, and upon the heels—may be found in the paintings and sculptures. But the Egyptians sat also on chairs and stools. In the paintings representing meals, we sometimes see the guests sitting on low stools, or else upon the ground; but we notice that one peculiar mode of sitting upon the ground is invariably adopted as best suited to give command of the table at dinner. The person kneels on the left knee, and he sits upon the heel of the same leg, while the foot of the sole of the right foot is planted on the ground, and the leg correspondingly raised.
Although Benjamin, as the youngest, has the lowest place Joseph shows him the special favor of sending to his table messes five times as large as any of the others receive. To present choice morsels with the hand to those at the same table, and to send dishes from his own table to that of any other person (always understanding that every two or three have a separate tray and table), is still the highest and most flattering distinction which an eastern host can show to the guest he delights to honor. And this was doubtless the nature of the attention which Joseph showed to his mother’s son. This disproportion of five to one must, however, have been very astonishing to the other brothers, and even to the Egyptians, if, as Herodotus tells us, the distinction in such cases to the kings themselves at public feasts and banquets, was no more than a double mess. Agesilaus, when in Egypt, used to have a double portion brought to him, one for himself, and the other to bestow wherever he felt inclined to confer a mark of his favor. Other instances of the kind are frequent in antiquity. Although in Europe, at least in modern times, the delicacy of the parts we give at table is more considered than the quantity, yet the tradition of these two customs are essentially the same. Indeed the antiquity and curiosity of many of the intimations which bear on so small a matter, may warn us to count nothing little that illustrates the prevalence and descent of ancient usages.