Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: March 30
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_43:32
But there was yet another, and perhaps a deeper reason—the previous occupation of Egypt by a pastoral race, who had committed great cruelties during their occupation of the country. The precise date of this invasion has not been, and perhaps never will be, ascertained. But we are strongly disposed to agree with Sir J. G. Wilkinson and others in thinking that “the already existing prejudice against shepherds, when the Hebrews arrived in the country, plainly shows that their invasion happened previous to that event.” Note: Ancient Egyptians, ii. 16. This is the view the present writer may claim to have always taken; and although it has of late years been most formidably opposed by recent continental writers, there still seems to him no other theory that is so probable in itself, and certainly none which so well harmonizes with all the Scriptural intimations. We cannot here trace that view so fully as might be wished; but the leading points of it are—That the intrusive dynasty, called the Hyksos, or “shepherd kings,” were in Egypt at the time of Abraham’s visit to that land; that they had recently been expelled when Joseph attained to honor in that country, and that the Pharaoh of his history is a native Egyptian prince. Hence Joseph, appearing as an Egyptian, speaks to his brethren by an interpreter; hence the dislike of the Egyptians to eat with a pastoral people; hence the fact that the fertile pasture district of Goshen happened to be then vacant for appropriation to the Israelites; for, according to the history of that invasion, this was the very district in which the Hyksos made their last stand, and in which they had for a good while maintained themselves, after their expulsion from the rest of Egypt. The king of a later age, who “knew not Joseph,” and who oppressed the Israelites, had, according to this view, no connection with this change, but was the first of a dynasty from Upper Egypt, who placed upon his head the crowns of the upper and lower country, until his time held apart, and who had little knowledge of the services, or care for the family, of Joseph, but looked upon them as a branch of the great pastoral family, from which Egypt had formerly suffered so much, and which it had still reason to regard with apprehension.
The other view assumes a later date for the incumbency of the shepherd kings. It holds that they were in the height of their power in Egypt in the time of Joseph, and that the change which eventually took place in the treatment of the Israelites settled in Goshen, arose from the expulsion of the intrusive dynasty, and the succession of the native sovereign, who would naturally regard the Israelites as merely a branch of the same obnoxious race. Although we cannot receive this view, we have no desire to underrate the learning and ability with which it has been advocated. It has, however, this fault, that we cannot reconcile it so well as the other with the facts of Scripture, and that it does not satisfactorily meet any one of the requisites which we have described as originally recommending the earlier date to our preference.
As the English reader has not had much opportunity of becoming acquainted with the grounds on which the later date is advocated, the leading points may be stated for his information. As, however, the statements of this view by different writers vary in circumstances, we shall chiefly follow that of a German writer by whom it has been most ably advocated. Note: Jost, in his General History of the Israelitish People (Allgemeine Geschichte des Israelitischen Volks). It is also advocated by Heeren is his Historical Researches (Ideen); and M.D.J.M. Henry in his Pharaonic Egypt (L’Egypte Pharaonique).
Entertaining the view, then, that the king who knew not Joseph, was the first native king who reigned after the expulsion of the shepherds, who had dominated over the country for 260 years, it is also held that the shepherds were Shemites, descended probably from Eber, and allied to the Israelites in spirit, language, and occupation, which very circumstance would make the latter hateful to the Egyptians. This agrees with the apprehensions of Pharaoh, that the Israelites, who had become exceedingly numerous, might avail themselves of the occasion of a war, to leave the country, and increase the number of hostile neighbors, Exo_1:10.
The settlement of the Israelites in Egypt must, if this view be correct, have taken place soon after the commencement of that dynasty. This is deemed to be corroborated by the narrative of Joseph, which supposes the reader to be acquainted with Egyptian history. In the first place the term Hebrew is applied, without immediate reference to Israel, Note: Gen_39:14; Gen_40:15; Gen_41:12; Gen_43:32. Exo_1:16; Exo_3:18; Exo_7:16. whose family was small, to the whole body of the shepherd people, who were so much hated by the Egyptians. This agrees, it is urged, with the opinion that they had conquered the country, and that the ruling monarchs were selected from their number, and forced upon the people, by whom they were held in detestation, though they did accommodate themselves to Egyptian usages.
It is next urged that it was only under a foreign dynasty, in such circumstances, that Joseph could have been raised to distinction. Hence the cup-bearer mentions him as a Hebrew youth, able to interpret dreams; and hence the king, of the same stock originally, determined to send for him, as the Egyptian wise men gave him no satisfaction. The advice of Joseph was gladly taken, because the king perceived immediately that the establishment and independence of the people would be promoted by it. To have a Hebrew in his service as administrator of the kingdom, would be agreeable to his dependents; and his foes, the priests, were conciliated by being exempted from civil burdens, and secured in their revenues. And although he conferred the right of citizenship on Joseph, giving him an Egyptian name, and bringing about his marriage with the daughter of a priest of the sun, yet he did not venture to violate the feelings of the people, and Joseph did not sit at the same table with the Egyptian lords, because they would not eat with the shepherd race.
Again, when Joseph’s brethren came to Egypt, they undoubtedly recognized him as a Hebrew, for his story must have been generally known; but it never occurred to them that he was their brother, whom they had sold, for there were certainly many Hebrews in the land, and some of them men of distinction. He confirmed their error by employing an interpreter. It is only on this supposition that he could affect to regard his ten brethren as spies; for while the shepherd race held the power, it is very conceivable that their jealousy should be excited by the apprehension of further inroads from the same stock. Such a feigned charge, preferred by a governor acting under the authority of a really Egyptian family, would be altogether inexplicable.
Lastly, it is stated that Pharaoh was pleased with the account of Joseph’s family. But were he an Egyptian, would he have allowed such men, hateful to his people, to settle in Egypt? But if he himself were of the same stock, his own satisfaction and that of his courtiers, is what might be expected from the characteristic hospitality of the race. Thus the Israelites were connected with the government, but hated by the Egyptian people. The remains of Jacob are embalmed, and, agreeably to his last will, committed to his own sepulcher, accompanied by many Egyptian lords—solemnities which it is not to be supposed that the enemies of the shepherd race would have allowed. The place in Canaan where the mourning ceremonies of the funeral were performed was called by the inhabitants Abel Mizraim (mourning of the Egyptians)—not necessarily because they were really Egyptians, but because they came from Egypt, and the ceremonies were conducted in the manner of the country.
That among these various suggestions there are none of any weight, it would be hard to say; but we grievously miscalculate the penetration of our readers, if they will not be able of themselves to disprove most of these arguments on the basis of the indications we have already afforded. It will not fail to be seen that the state of feeling which, according to all but such as adopt this view, arose out of the long and oppressive occupation of the land by the shepherds—is throughout quietly assumed not only to have existed, but to have been manifested, even at court, during the period of their dominion, and, indeed, what must have been very soon after its commencement. It will also be perceived that even the most probable of the facts adduced, become more probable still under the explanation that the court of Egypt, in the time of Joseph, was a native Egyptian, the intrusive pastoral dynasty having been then expelled. Even the fact that Joseph affected to take his brethren for spies, which is triumphantly alleged to be inexplicable under a native dynasty, is, in fact, more easily explained under that hypothesis; for if the shepherds had been at a recent date driven out of the country, it was quite natural that a careful watch should be kept over persons of the same order entering the land, who might be suspected of some attempt which might be made by the expelled pastoral tribes to recover the power they had lost. It may also be remarked, that the assertion that Joseph and his family, though favored by the court, are hated by the people, is not only unsupported by Scripture, but is at variance with the general tendency of its intimations. Look, for instance, at Deu_23:7, “Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land;” a passage which is justly held by Hengstenberg to imply that the Israelites received, in some respect, better treatment from individuals of the Egyptians than from the state; so that the Israelites had cause for grateful regard to them in return, since the phrase, “for thou wast a stranger in his land,” is not a sufficient reason for the command, “Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian,” unless it means that the Egyptians performed the offices of hospitality to the Israelites, and earned for themselves the claim of reciprocity.
It seems to us that the disposition to assign the later date to the shepherd dynasty of Egypt has arisen from the wish to account, in what might seem the most satisfactory manner, for the change of policy which took place when a dynasty, comparatively insensible to the ancient services of Joseph, came into power in lower Egypt. But this is sufficiently accounted for by the succession of a king from the upper country, who had previously reigned in the distant province of Thebes, and who would be naturally inclined to look upon the Hebrews with the same distrust and contempt with which foreigners, and especially pastoral foreigners, were usually treated by the Egyptians. Accordingly, it is at this time, sixty years after the death of Joseph, that Wilkinson, in his Tables, fixes the accession of the Theban dynasty in the person of Amosis, whom he, with reason, regards as “the new king who knew not Joseph.”
There is one point, incidentally produced, as to the origin of the shepherds, which may require a word of notice. The notion that the term, Hebrews, applies to the whole body of the shepherd people, including the Israelites, is now maintained by great authorities. If the name Hebrew be derived from Eber, as seems to be generally understood, there is no reason that it should not be applicable to any other descendants of Eber besides the family of Abraham. The strongest passage for this interpretation is that in which Joseph says he was stolen from “the land of the Hebrews,” which, it is urged, is scarcely applicable to the family of Jacob. It may be allowed that there is a difficulty; but the difficulty is as great the other way—as it is by no means easy to see in what sense the land of Canaan, then in great part a settled country, could, in this wider sense, be called “a land of pastoral tribes;” and, as far as appears, Abraham’s family was the only one of Shemitic origin in the land. Still, this objection has much to recommend it, although the proof is less satisfactory than might be desired. Some evidence may yet be found to settle this difficult question; but while the opinions of intelligent and learned men differ so greatly, it must be held that the material, for a positive conclusion do not exist. Wilkinson at first held that the Hyksos were from Assyria; but now, or lately, regards them as a Scythian tribe. Some bring them even from India; others find them in the Berbers of Africa; and many seek them in the neighboring pastoral tribes of Shemitic origin. Perhaps the last view is the safest to be entertained, till a more positive conclusion can be reached.