Egypt and the Egyptians

Historical Notes from Smith’s Bible Dictionary and The Companion Bible
Alexandria.—(3 Macc. iii. 1; Acts xviii. 24, vi. 9), the Hellenic, Roman, and Christian capital of Egypt, was founded by Alexander the Great B .C . 332, who himself traced the ground-plan of the city, which he designed to make the metropolis of his western empire. The work thus begun was continued after the death of Alexander by the Ptolemies. Every natural advantage contributed to its prosperity. The climate and the sight were singularly healthy. The harbours, formed by the island of Pharos and the headland Lochias, were safe and commodious, alike for commerce and for war; and the Lake Mareotis was an inland haven for the merchandise of Egypt and India. Under the despotism of the later Ptolemies the trade of Alexandria declined, but its population and wealth were enormous. After the victory of Augustus it suffered for its attachment to the cause of Antony; but its importance as one of the chief corn-ports of Rome* secured for it the general favour of the first emperors. In later times the seditious tumults for which the Alexandrians had always been notorious desolated the city, and religious feuds aggravated the popular distress. Yet even thus, though Alexandria suffered greatly from constant dissension and the weakness of the Byzantine court, the splendour of “the great city of the West” amazed Amron, its Arab conqueror; and, after centuries of Mohammedan misrule, it promises once again to justify the wisdom of its founder.—The population of Alexandria was mixed from the first; and this fact formed the groundwork of the Alexandrine character. The three regions into which the city was divided (Regio Judaeorum, Brucheium, Rhachotis) corresponded to the three chief classes of its inhabitants, Jews, Greeks, Egyptians; but in addition to these principal races, representatives of almost every nation were found there. According to Josephus, Alexander himself assigned to the Jews a place in his new city; “and they obtained,” he adds, “equal privileges with the Macedonians,” in consideration “of their services against the Egyptians.” Ptolemy I. imitated the policy of Alexander, and, after the capture of Jerusalem, removed a considerable number of its citizens to Alexandria. Many others followed on their own accord; and all received the full Macedonian franchise, as men of known and tried fidelity. Already on a former occasion the Jews had sought a home in the land of their bondage. More than two centuries and a half before the foundation of Alexandria, a large body of them had taken refuge in Egypt, after the murder of Gedaliah; but these, after a general apostasy, were carried captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar (2 K. xxv. 26; Jer. xliv.).—The fate of the later colony was far different. The numbers and the importance of the Egyptian Jews were rapidly increased under the Ptolemies by fresh immigrations and untiring industry. Philo estimates them in his time at little less than 1,000,000; and adds, that two of the five districts of Alexandria were called “Jewish districts;” and that many Jews lived scattered in the remaining three. Julius Caesar and Augustus confirmed to them the privileges which they had enjoyed before, and they retained them, with various interruptions, during the tumults and persecutions of later reigns. They were represented, at least for some time (from the time of Cleopatra to the reign of Claudius), by their own officer, and Augustus appointed a council (i. e. Sanhedrin) “to superintend the affairs of the Jews” according to their own laws. The establishment of Christianity altered the civil position of the Jews, but they maintained their relative prosperity; and when Alexandria was taken by Amrou 40,000 tributary Jews were reckoned among the marvels of the city.—For some time the Jewish Church in Alexandria was in close dependence on that of Jerusalem. Both were subject to the civil power of the first Ptolemies, and both acknowledged the high-priest as their religious head. The persecution of Ptolemy Philopater (217 B .C .) occasioned the first political separation between the two bodies. From that time the Jews of Palestine attached themselves to the fortunes of Syria [ANTIOCHUS the

Great]; and the same policy which alienated the Palestinian party gave unity and decision to the Jews of Alexandria. The Septuagint translation, which strengthened the barrier of language between Palestine and Egypt, and the temple at Leontopolis (161 B .C .), which subjected the Egyptian Jews to the charge of schism, widened the breach which was thus opened. But the division, though marked, was not complete. At the beginning of the Christian era the Egyptian Jews still paid the contributions to the temple-service. Jerusalem, though its name was fashioned to a Greek shape, was still the Holy City, the metropolis not of a country but of a people, and the Alexandrians had a synagogue there (Acts vi. 9). The internal administration of the Alexandrine Church was independent of the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem; but respect survived submission.—According to the common legend St. Mark first “preached the Gospel in Egypt, and founded the first Church in Alexandria.” At the beginning of the 2nd century the number of Christians at Alexandria must have been very large, and the great leaders of Gnosticism who arose from there (Basiludes, Valentinus) exhibit an exaggeration of the tendency of the Church. *The Alexandrine corn vessels (Acts xxvii. 6, xxviii. 11) were large (Acts xxvii. 37) and handsome. They generally sailed direct to Puteoli (Acts xxviii. 13); but, from stress of weather, often kept close under the Asiatic coast (Acts xxvii). Aven.—1. The “plain of Aven” is mentioned by Amos (i. 5) in his denunciation of Syria, and the country to the N. of Palestine. It has not been identified with certainty.—2. In Hos. x. 8, “the high places of Aven,” the word is clearly an abbreviation of Beth-aven, that is Bethel (comp. iv. 15, &c.).—3. In this manner are pointed, in Ez. xxx. 17, the letters of the name which is elsewhere given as On, the sacred city of Heliopolis or On, in Egypt. [ON .] Bithi’ah.—Daughter of a Pharaoh, and wife of Mered, a descendant of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 18). The Scriptures, as well as the Egyptian monuments, show that the Pharaohs intermarried with foreigners; but such alliances seem to have been contracted with royal families alone. It may be supposed that Bithiah was taken captive. Egypt.—A country occupying the north-eastern angle of Africa, and lying between N. lat. 31º 37' and 24º 1', and E. long. 27º 13' and 34º 12'. Its limits appear always to have been very nearly the same. In Ezekiel (xxix. 10, xxx. 6) the whole country is spoken of as extending from Migdol to Syene, which indicates the same limits to the east and the south as at present.—Names—The common name of Eygpt in the Bible is “Mizraim,” or more fully “the land of Mizraim.” In form Mizraim is a dual, and accordingly it is generally joined with a plural verb. When, therefore, in Gen. x. 6, Mizraim is mentioned as a son of Ham, we must not conclude that anything more is meant than that Egypt was colonized by the descendants of Ham. The dual number doubtless indicates the natural division of the country into an upper and a lower region. The singular Mazor also occurs, and some suppose that it indicates Lower Egypt, but there is no sure ground for this assertion. The Arabic name of Egypt Mizr signifies “red mud.” Egypt is also called in the Bible “the land of Ham” (Ps. cv. 23, 27; comp. lxxviii. 51), a name probably referring to Ham the son of Noah; and “Rahab,” the proud or insolent: both these appear to be poetical appellations. The common ancient Egyptian name of the

country is written in hieroglyphics KEM, which was perhaps pronounced Chem; the demotic form is KEMEE. This name signifies, alike in the ancient language and in Coptic, “black,” and may be supposed to have been given to the land on account of the blackness of its alluvial soil. We may reasonably conjecture that Kem is the Egyptian equivalent of Ham, and also of Mazor, these two words being similar or even the same in a sense. Under the Pharaohs Egypt was divided into Upper and Lower, “the two regions” TA-TEE? called respectively “the Southern Region” TA-RES, and “the Northern Region” TA-MEHEET. There were different crowns for the two regions. In subsequent times this double division obtained. In the time of the Greeks and Romans Upper Egypt was divided into the Heptanomis and the Thebais, making altogether three provinces, but the division of the whole country into two was even then the most usual.—Superficies—Egypt has a superficies of about 9582 square miles of soil, which the Nile either does or can water and fertilize. This computation includes the river and lakes as well as sandy tracts which can be inundated; but the whole space either cultivated or fit for cultivation is no more than about 5626 square miles. Anciently 2735 square miles more may have been cultivated, and now it would be possible at once to reclaim about 1295 square miles. —Nomes—From a remote period, Egypt was divided into Nomes HESPU, sing. HESP, each one of which had special objects of worship. There is no distinct reference to them in the Bible.—General appearance, Climate, &c.—The general appearance of the country cannot have greatly changed since the days of Moses. The Delata was always a vast level plain, although of old more perfectly watered down than now by the branches of the Nile and numerous canals, while the narrow valley of Upper Egypt must have suffered still less alteration. Anciently, however, the rushes must have been abundant; whereas now they have almost disappeared, except in the lakes. The whole country is remarkable for its extreme fertility which especially strikes the beholder when the rich green of the fields is contrasted with the utterly bare yellow mountains or the sand-strewn rocky desert on either side. The climate is equable and healthy. Rain is not very unfrequent on the northern coast, but inland very rare. Cultivation nowhere depends on it. This absence of rain is mentioned in Deut. (xi. 10, 10) as rendering artificial irrigation necessary, unlike the case of Palestine, and in Zech. (xiv. 18) as peculiar to the country. Egypt has been visited in all ages by severe pestilences, but it cannot be determined that any of those of ancient times were of the character of the modern Plague. Famines are frequent, and one in the middle ages, in the time of the Fátimee Khaleefeh El-Mustansir-billah, seems to have been even more severe than that of Joseph.—Geology.—The fertile plain of the Delta and the valley of Upper Egypt are bounded by rocky deserts covered or strewn with sand. On either side of the plain they are low, but they overlook the valley, above which they rise so steeply as from the river to present the aspect of cliffs. The formation is limestone as far as a little above Thebes, where sandstone begins. The First Cataract, the southern limit of Egypt, is caused by granite and other primitive rocks, which rise through the sandstone and obstruct the river’s bed. An important geological change has in the course of centuries raised the country near the head of the Gulf of Suez, and depressed that on the northern side of the isthmus. Since the Christian era the head of the gulf has retired southwards.—The Nile.—In Egyptian the Nile bore the sacred appellation HAPEE or HAPEEMU, “the abyss,” or “the abyss of waters.” As Egypt was divided into two regions, we find two Niles, HAPEE-RES, “the Southern Nile,” and HAPEE-MEHEET, “the Northern Nile,” the former name being given to the river in Upper Egypt and Nubia. The inundation fertilises and sustains the country, and makes the river its chief blessing. The Nile was on this account anciently worshipped. The rise begins in Egypt about the summer solstice, and the inundation commences about two months later. The greatest height is attained about or somewhat after the autumnal equinox. The inundation lasts about three months.—Cultivation, Agriculture, &c.—The ancient prosperity of Egypt is attested by the Bible as well as by the numerous monuments of the country. As early as the age of the Great Pyramid it must have been densely populated. The contrast of the present state of Egypt to its former prosperity is more to be ascribed to political than physical causes. Egypt is naturally an agricultural country. As far back as the days of Abraham, we find that when the produce failed in

Palestine, Egypt was the natural resource. In the time of Joseph it was evidently the granary, at least during famines, of the nations around. The inundation, as taking the place of rain, has always rendered the system of agriculture peculiar; and the artificial irrigation during the time of low Nile is necessarily on the same principle. Watering with the foot (Deut. xi. 10, 11) may refer to some mode of irrigation by machine, but the monuments do not afford a representation of it. That now called the shádoof is depicted, and seems to have been the common means of artificial irrigation. There are detailed pictures of breaking up the earth, or ploughing, or sowing, harvest, threshing, and storing wheat in granaries. Vines were extensively cultivated. Of other fruit-trees, the datepalm was the most common and valuable. The gardens resembled the fields, being watered in the same manner by irrigation. On the tenure of land, much light is thrown by the history of Joseph. Before the famine each city and large village had its field (Gen. xli. 48); but Joseph gained for Pharaoh all the land, except that the priests, in exchange for food, and required for the right thus obtained a fifth of the produce, which became law (xlvii. 20–26). The evidence of the monuments, though not very explicit, seems to show that this law was ever afterwards in force under the Pharaohs. The great lakes in the north of Egypt were anciently of high importance, especially for their fisheries and the growth of the papyrus. The canals are now far less numerous than of old, and many of them are choked and comparatively useless.—Botany.—The cultivable land of Egypt consists almost wholly of fields, in which are very few trees. There are no forests and few groves, except of date-palms, and in Lower Egypt a few of orange and lemon-trees. There are also sycomores, mulberry-trees, and acacias, either planted on the sides of roads or standing singly in the fields. The Theban palm grows in the Thebaïs, generally in clumps. These were all, except perhaps the mulberry tree, of old common in the country. The chief fruits are the date, grape, fig, sycomore-fig, pomegranate, banana, many kinds of melons, and the olive; and there were many others less common or important. These were also of old produced in the country. The vegetables are of many kinds and excellent, and form the chief food of the common people. The most important field-produce in ancient times was wheat; after it must be placed barley, millet, flax, and among the vegetables, lentils, peas, and beans. It is clear from the evidence of the monuments and of the ancient writers that, of old, reeds were far more common in Egypt than now. The byblus or papyrus is almost or quite unknown. Anciently it was a common and most important plant: boats were made of its stalks, and of their thin leaves the famous paper was manufactured. The lotus was anciently the favourite flower, and at feasts it took the place of the rose among the Greeks and the Arabs: it is now very rare.—Zoology.—Of old Egypt was far more a pastoral country than at present. The neat cattle are still excellent, but lean kine are more common among them than they seem to have been in the days of Joseph’s Pharaoh (Gen. xli. 19). Sheep and goats have always been numerous. Anciently, swine were kept, but not in great numbers; now there are none, or scarcely any. Under the Pharaohs the horses of the country were in repute among the neighboring nations, who purchased them as well as chariots out of Egypt. Asses were anciently numerous: the breed at the present time is excellent. Dogs were formerly more prized than now, for being held by most of the Muslims to be extremely unclean, they are only used to watch the houses in the villages. The camel has nowhere been found mentioned in the inscriptions of Egypt, or represented on monuments. It is probable that camels were not kept in Egypt, but only on the frontier. The deserts have always abounded in wild animals, especially of the canine and antelope kinds. Anciently the hippopotamus was found in the Egyptian Nile, and hunted. Now, this animal is rarely seen even in Lower Nubia. The elephant may have been, in the remotest historical period, an inhabitant of Egypt, and, as a land animal, have been driven further south than the hippopotamus. Bats abound in the temples and tombs. The birds in Egypt are not remarkable for beauty of plumage: in so open a country, this is natural. The Rapaces are numerous, but the most common are scavengers, as vultures and the kite. The Grallatores and Anseres abound on the islands and sandbanks of the river and in the sides of the mountains which approach or touch the stream. Among the reptiles, the crocodile must be especially mentioned. In the Bible it is usually called tannin or tannim, “dragon,” a

generic word of almost as wide a signification as “reptile,” and is used as a symbol of the king of Egypt (Ez. xxix. 3–5). But “leviathan” appears to be the special name of that animal. Frogs are very numerous in Egypt, and their loud and constant croaking in the autumn makes it not difficult to picture the Plague of Frogs. Serpents and snakes are also common, but the more venomous have their home, like the scorpion, in the desert (comp. Deut. viii. 15). The Nile and lakes have an abundance of fish. Among the insects the locusts must be mentioned, which sometime come upon the cultivated land in a cloud. As to the lice and flies, they are still plagues of Egypt.—Ancient Inhabitants.—The old inhabitants of Egypt appear from their monuments and the testimony of ancient writers to have occupied in race a place between the Nitgritians and the Caucasians. They were in character very religious and contemplative, but given to base superstition, patriotic, respectful to women, hospitable, generally frugal, but at times luxurious, very sensual, lying, thievish, treacherous and cringing, and intensely prejudiced, through pride of race, against strangers, although kind to them. This is very much the character of the modern inhabitants, except that Mohammadanism has taken away the respect for women.—Language.—The ancient Egyptian language, from the earliest period at which it was known to us, is an agglutinate monosyllabic form of speech. It is expressed by the signs which we call hieroglyphics. The character of the language is compound: it consists of elements resembling those of the Nigritian languages and the Chinese language on the one hand, and those of the Shemitic languages on the other. As early as the age of the xxvith dynasty a vulgar dialect was expressed in the demotic or enchorial writing. This dialect forms the link connecting the old language with the Coptic, which does not very greatly differ from the monumental language, except in the presence of many Greek words.—Religion.—The basis of the religion was Nigritian fetishism, the lowest kind of nature-worship, differing in different parts of the country, and hence obviously indigenous. Upon this were engrafted, first, cosmic worship, mixed up with traces of primeval revelation, as in Babylonia; and then, a system of personifications of moral and intellectual abstractions. There were three orders of gods—the eight great gods, the twelve lesser, and the Osirian group. There was no prominent hero-worship, although deceased kings and other individuals often received divine honours. The great doctrines of the immortality of the soul, man’s responsibility, and future rewards and punishments, were taught. Among the rites, circumcision is the most remarkable: it is as old as the time of the ivth dynasty. The Israelites in Egypt appear during the oppression, for the most part, to have adopted the Egyptian religion (Josh. xxiv. 14, Ex. xx. 7, 8). The golden calf, or rather steer, was probably taken from the bull Apis, certainly one of the sacred bulls. Remphan and Chiun were foreign divinities adopted into the Egyptian Pantheon. Ashtoreth was worshipped at Memphis. Doubtless this worship was introduced by the Phoenician Shepherds.—Laws.—We have no complete account on the laws of the ancient Egyptians either in their own records or in works of ancient writers. The paintings and sculptures of the monuments indicate a very high degree of personal safety, showing us that the people of all ranks commonly went unarmed, and without military protection. Capital punishment appears to have been almost restricted, in practice, to murder. Crimes of violence were more severely treated than offences against religion and morals. Popular feeling seems to have taken the duties of the judge upon itself in the case of impiety alone (Ex. viii. 26).—Government.—The government was monarchical, but not of an absolute character. The sovereign was not superior to the laws, and the priests had the power to check the undue exercise of his authority. Nomes and districts were governed by officers whom the Greeks called nomarchs and toparchs. There seems to have been no hereditary aristocracy, except perhaps at the earliest period.—Foreign Policy.—The foreign policy of the Egyptians must be regarded in its relation to the admission of foreigners into Egypt and to the treatment of tributary and allied nations. In the former aspect it was characterized by an exclusiveness which sprang from a national hatred of the yellow and white races, and was maintained by the wisdom of preserving institutions of the country from the influence of the pirates of the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean, and the robbers of the deserts. Hence the jealous exclusion of the Greeks from the northern ports until Naucratis was opened to them, and hence too

the restriction of Shemite settlers in earlier times to the land of Goshen, scarcely regarded as part of Egypt. The general policy of the Egyptians towards their eastern tributaries seems to have been marked by great moderation. The Pharaohs intermarried with them, and neither forced upon them Egyptian garrisons, except in some important positions, nor attempted those deportations that are so marked a feature of Asiatic policy. In the case of those nations which never attacked them they do not appear to have even exacted tribute. So long as their general supremacy was uncontested they would not be unwise enough to make favourable or neutral powers their enemies. Of hteir relation to the Israelites we have for the earlier part of this period no direct information. The explicit account of the later part is fully consistent with the general policy of the Pharaohs. Shishak and Zerah are the only exceptions in a series of friendly kings, and they were almost certainly of Assyrian or Babylonian extraction.—With respect to the African nations a different policy appears to have been pursued. The Rebu (Lebu) or Lubim, to the west of Egypt, on the north coast, were reduced to subjection, and probably employed, like the Shayretana or Cherethim, as mercenaries. Ethiopia was made a purely Egyptian province, ruled by a viceroy, “the Prince of Kesh (Cush),” and the assimilation was so complete that Ethiopian sovereigns seem to have been received by the Egyptians as native rulers. Further south, the Negroes were subject to predatory attacks like the slave-hunts of modern times.—Army.—There are some notices of the Egyptian army in the O. T. They show, like the monuments, that its most important branch was the chariot force. The Pharaoh of the Exodus led 600 chosen chariots besides his whole chariot-force in pursuit of the Israelites. The warriors fighting in chariots are probably the “horsemen” mentioned in relation to this event and elsewhere, for in Egyptian they are called “horse” or “cavalry.” We have no subsequent indication in the Bible of the constitution of an Egyptian army until the time of the xxiind dynasty, when we find that Shishak’s invading force was partly composed of foreigners; whether mercenaries or allies, cannot as yet be positively determined, although the monuments make it most probable that they were of the former character. The army of Necho, defeated at Carchemish, seems to have been similarly composed, although it probably contained Greek mercenaries, who soon afterwards became the most important foreign element in the Egyptian forces.—Domestic Life.—The sculptures and paintings of the tombs give us a very full insight into the domestic life of the ancient Egyptians, as may be seen in Sir G. Wilkinson’s great work. What most strikes us in their manners is the high position occupied by women, and the entire absence of the harem system of seclusion. Marriage appears to have been universal, at least with the richer class; and if polygamy were tolerated it was rarely practiced. Concubinage was allowed, the concubines taking the place of inferior wives. There were no castes, although great classes were very distinct. The occupations of the higher class were the superintendence of their fields and gardens; their diversions, the pursuit of game in the deserts, or on the river, and fishing. The tending of the cattle was left to the most despised of the lower class. The Egyptian feasts, and the dances, music, and feats that accompanied them, for the diversion of the guests, as well as the common games, were probably introduced among the Hebrews in the most luxurious days of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The account of the noontide dinner of Joseph (Gen. xliii. 16, 31–34) agrees with the representations of the monuments. The funeral ceremonies were far more important than any events of the Egyptian life as the tomb was regarded as the only true home.—Literature and Art.—The Egyptians were a very literary people, and time has preserved to us, besides the inscriptions of their tombs and temples, many papyri, of a religious or historical character, and one tale. They bear no resemblance to the books of the O. T., except such as arises from their sometimes enforcing moral truths in a manner not wholly different from that of the Book of Proverbs. The moral and religious system is, however, essentially different in its principles and their application. In science, Egyptian influence may be distinctly traced in the Pentateuch. Moses was “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts. vii. 22), and probably derived from them the astronomical knowledge which was necessary for the calendar. The Egyptians excelled in geometry and mechanics. In medicine and surgery, high proficiency was probably of but little use to the Hebrews after the Exodus. In the arts of

architecture, sculpture, and painting, the former of which was the chief, there seems to have been but a very slight influence.—Magicians.—We find frequent reference in the Bible to the magicians of Egypt (Gen. xli. 8; Ex. vii. 11, &c.). The monuments do not recognise any such art, and we must conclude that magic was secretly practised, not because it was thought to be unlawful, but in order to give it importance.—Industrial Arts.—The industrial arts held an important place in the occupations of the Egyptians. The workers in fine flax and the weavers of white linen are mentioned in a manner that shows they were among the chief contributors to the riches of the country (Is. xix. 9). The fine linen of Egypt found its way to Palestine (Prov. vii. 16). Pottery was a great branch of the native manufactures, and appears to have furnished employment for the Hebrews during the bondage (Ps. lxxxi. 6, lxviii. 13; comp. Ex. i.14).—Festivals.—The religious festivals were numerous, and some of them were, in the days of Herodotus, kept with great merry-making and license. The feast which the Israelites celebrated when Aaron had made the golden calf seems to have been very much of the same character.—Manners of Modern Inhabitants.—The manners of modern inhabitants are more similar to those of the ancient Hebrews, on account of Arab influence, than the manners of their predecessors.—CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY .—The subject may be divided into three main branches, technical chronology, historical chronology, and history.—1. Technical Chronology.—That the Egyptians used various periods of time, and made astronomical observations from a remote age, is equally attested by ancient writers, and by their monuments. There appear to have been at least three years in use with the Egyptians before the Roman domination, the Vague Year, the Tropical Year, and the Sothic Year; but it is not probable that more than two of these were employed at the same time. The Vague Year contained 365 days without any additional fraction, and therefore passed through all the seasons in about 1500 years. It was both used for civil and for religious purposes. The Vague Year was divided into twelve months, each of the thirty days, with five additional days, after the twelfth. The months were assigned to three seasons, each comprising four months, called respectively the 1st, 2nd , 3rd , and 4th of those seasons. The names by which the Egyptian months are commonly known, Thoth, Paophi, &c., are taken from the divinities to which they were sacred. The seasons are called, according to our rendering, those of Vegetation, Manifestation, and the Waters or the Inundation: the exact meaning off their names has however been much disputed. They evidently refer to the phenomenon of the Tropical Year, and such a year we must therefore conclude the Egyptians to have had, at least in a remote period of their history. The Sothic Year was a supposed sidereal year of 365 1/4 days, commencing with the so-called heliacal rising of Sothis. The Vague Year, having no intercalation, constantly retreated through the Sothic Year, until a period of 1461 years of the former kind, and 1460 of the latter had elapsed, from one coincidence of commencements to another. The Egyptians are known to have used two great cycles, the Sothic Cycle and the Tropical Cycle. The former was a cycle of the coincidence of the Sothic and Vague Years, and therefore consisted of 1460 years of the former kind. The Tropical Cycle was a cycle of the coincidence of the Tropical and Vague Years. It has been supposed by M. Biot to have a duration of 1505 years; but the length of 1500 Vague Years is preferable. The monuments make mention of Panegyrical Months, which can only, we believe, be periods of thirty years each, and divisions of a year of the same kind.—2. Historical Chronology.—The materials for historical chronology are the monuments and the remains of the historical work of Manetho. The remains of Manetho’s historical work consist of a list of the Egyptian dynasties and two considerable fragments, one relating to the Shepherds, the other to a tale of the Exodus. The list is only known to use in the epitome given by Africanus, preserved by Syncellus, and that given by Eusebius. These present such great differences that it is not reasonable to hope that we can restore a correct text. The series of dynasties is given as if they were successive, in which case the commencement of the first would be placed full 5000 years B .C ., and the reign of the king who built the Great Pyramid 4000. The monuments do not warrant so extreme an antiquity, and the great majority of Egyptologers have therefore held that the dynasties were partly contemporary. The evidence of the monuments leads to the same conclusion. Kings who unquestionably belong to

different dynasties are shown by them to be contemporary. The monuments will not, in our opinion, justify any great extension of the period assigned to the first seventeen dynasties (B .C . 2700–1500). The last date, that of the commencement of the xviiith dynasty, cannot be changed more than a few years. The date of the beginning of the 1st dynasty, which we are disposed to place a little before B .C . 2700, is more doubtful, but a concurrence of astronomical evidence points to the twenty-eighth century. Some have supposed a much greater antiquity for the commencement of Egyptian history. Lepsius places the accession of Menes B .C . 3892, and Bunsen, two hundred years later. Their system is founded upon a passage in the chronological work of Syncellus, which assigns a duration of 3555 to the thirty dynasties. It is by no means certain that this number is given on the authority of Manetho, but apart from this, the whole statement is unmistakably not from the true Manetho.—3. History—That Egypt was colonised by the descendants of Noah in a very remote age is shown by the mention of the migration of the Philistines from Caphtor, which had taken place before the arrival of Abraham in Palestine. Before this migration could ever occur the Caphtorim and other Mizraites must have occupied Egypt for some time. A remarkable passage points to a knowledge of the date at which an ancient city of Egypt was founded. The evidence of the Egyptians as to the primeval history of their race and country is extremely indefinite. They seem to have separated mankind into two great stocks, and each of these again into two branches, for they appear to have represented themselves and the Negroes, the red and black races, as the children of the god Horus, and the Shemites and Europeans, the yellow and white races, as the children of the goddess Pesht. They seem, therefore, to have held a double origin of the species. The absence of any important traditional period is very remarkable in the fragments of Egyptian history. These commence with the divine dynasties, and pass abruptly to the human dynasties. The indications are of a sudden change of seat, and the settlement in Egypt of a civilized race, which, either wishing to be believed autochthonous, or having lost all ties that could keep up the traditions of its first dwelling-place, filled up the commencement of its history with materials drawn from mythology. There is no trace of the tradition of the Deluge which is found in almost every other country of the world. The priests are indeed reported to have told Solon when he spoke of one deluge that many had occurred, but the reference is more likely to have been to great floods of the Nile than to any extraordinary catastrophes. The history of the dynasties preceding the xviiith is not told by any continuous series of monuments. Except those of the ivth and xiith dynasties there are scarcely any records of the age left to the present day, and thence in a great measure arises the difficulty of determining the chronology. From the time of Menes, the first king, until the Shepherd-invasion, Egypt seems to have enjoyed perfect tranquility. During this age the Memphite line was the most powerful, and by it, under the ivth dynasty, were the most famous pyramids raised. The Shepherds were foreigners who came from the East, and, in some manner unknown to Manetho, gained the rule of Egypt. Those whose kings composed the xvth dynasty were the first and most important. They appear to have been Phoenicians. Most probably the Pharaoh of Abraham was of this line. The period of Egyptian history to which the Shepherd-invasion should be assigned is a point of dispute. It is generally placed after the xiith dynasty, for it is argued that this powerful line could not have reigned at the same time as one or more Shepherd-dynasties. We are of the opinion that this objection is not valid, and that the Shepherd-invasion was anterior to the xiith dynasty. The rule of the xiith dynasty, which was of Thebans, lasting about 160 years, was a period of prosperity to Egypt, but after its close those calamities appear to have occurred which made the Shepherds hated by the Egyptians. During the interval to the xviiith dynasty there seems to have been no native line of any importance but that of the Thebans, and more than one Shepherd dynasty exercised a severe rule over the Egyptians.—We must here notice the history of the Israelites in Egypt with reference to the dynasty of the Pharaohs who favoured them, and that of their oppressors. According to the scheme of Biblical Chronology which we believe to be the most probable, the whole sojourn in Egypt would belong to the period before the xviiith dynasty. The Israelites would have come in and gone forth during that obscure age for the history of which we have little or no monumental evidence.

This would explain the absence of any positive mention of them on the Egyptian monuments. Since the Pharaoh of Joseph must have been a powerful ruler and held Lower Egypt, there can be no question that he was, if the dates be correct, a shepherd of the xvth dynasty. The “new king” “which knew not Joseph,” is generally thought by those who hold with us to the previous history, to have been an Egyptian, and head of the xviiith dynasty. It seems at first sight extremely probable that the king who crushed, if he did not expel the Shepherds, would be the first oppressor of the nation which they protected. If we conclude that the Exodus most probably occurred before the xviiith dynasty, we have to ascertain, if possible, whether the Pharaohs of the oppression appear to have been Egyptians or Shepherds. The change of policy is in favour of their having been Egyptians, but is by no means conclusive. If the chronology be correct we can only decide in favour of the Shepherds. During the time to which the events are assigned there were no more important lines but the Theban, and one or more of Shepherds. Manetho, according to the transcript of Aricanus, speaks of three Shepherd-dynasties, the xvth, xvith, and xviith, the last of which, according to the present text, was of Shepherds and Thebans, but this is probably incorrect, and the dynasty should rather be considered as of Shepherds alone. A passage in Isaiah (lii. 4) indicates that the oppressor was an Assyrian, and therefore not of the xvth dynasty, which, according to Manetho, in the epitomes, was of Phoenicians, and opposed to the Assyrians. Among the names of kings of this period in the Royal Turin Papyrus, are two which appear to be Assyrian, so that we may reasonably suppose that some of the foreign rulters were of that race. It is not possible at present to decide whether they were of the xvith or the xviith dynasty. The history of the xviiith, xixth, and xxth dynasties is that of the Egyptian empire. Aahmes, the head of the first of these (B .C . cir. 1525), overthrew the power of the Shepherds, and probably expelled them. Queen Amen-nemt and Thothmes II. and III. are the earliest sovereigns of whom great monuments remain in the temple of El-Karnak, the chief sanctuary of Thebes. The last of these rulers was a great foreign conqueror, and reduced Ninevah, and perhaps Babylon also, to his sway. Amenoph III, his great-grandson, states on scarabaei, struck apparently to commemorate his marriage, that his northern boundary was in Mesopotamia, his southern in Kara (Choloë?) the head of the xixth dynasty, Sethee I., or Sethos, (B .C . cir. 1340), waged great foreign wars, particularly with the Hittites of the valley of the Orontes, whose capital Ketesh, situate near Emesa, he captured. His son Rameses II. was the most illustrious of the Pharaohs. If he did not exceed all others in foreign conquests, he far outshone them in the grandeur and beauty of the temples with which he adorned Egypt and Nubia. His chief campaign was against the Hittites and a great confederacy they had formed. Menptah, the son and successor of Rameses II., is supposed by the advocates of the Rabbinical date of the Exodus to have been the Pharaoh in whose time the Israelites went out. One other king of this period must be noticed, Rameses III, of the xxth dynasty, B .C . cir. 1200, whose conquests, recorded on the walls of his great temple of Medeenet Haboo in western Thebes seem to have been not less important than those of Rameses II. Under his successors, the power of Egypt evidently declined, and towards the close of the dynasty the country seems to have fallen into anarchy, the high-priests of Amen having usurped regal power at Thebes and a Lower Egyptian dynasty, the xxist, arisen at Tanis. Probably the Egyptian princess who became Solomon’s wife was a daughter of a late king of the Tanite dynasty. The head of the xxiind dynasty, Sheshonk I., the Shishak of the Bible, restored the unity of the kingdom, and revived the credit of the Egyptian arms, B .C . cir. 990. Probably his successor, Osorkon I., is the Zerah of scripture, defeated by Asa. Egypt makes no figure in Asiatic history during the xxiiird and xxivth dynasties: under the xxvth it regained. This was an Ethiopian line, the warlike sovereigns of which strove to the utmost to repel the onward stride of Assyria. So, whom we are disposed to identify with Shebek II. or Sebichus, the second Ethiopian, rather than with Shebek I. or Sabaco, the first, made an alliance with Hoshea the last king of Israel. Tebrak or Tirhakah, the third of this house, advanced against Sennacharib in support of Hezekiah. After this, a native dynasty again occupied the throne, the xxvith, of Saïte kings. Psametek I. or Psammethicus I. (B .C . 664), who may be regarded as the head of this dynasty, warred in Palestine, and took Ashdod, Azotus, after a siege of twenty-nine years. Neku

or Necho, the son of Psammethicus, continued to war in the East, and marched along the coast of Palestine to attack the king of Assyria. At Megiddo Josiah encountered him (B .C . 608–7), notwithstanding the remonstrance of the Egyptian king, which is very illustrative of the policy of the Pharaohs in the east (2 Chr. xxv. 21), no less than is his lenient conduct after the defeat and death of the king of Judah. The army of Necho was after a short space routed at Carchemish by Nebuchadnezzar, B .C . 605–4 (Jer. xlvi. 2). The second successor of Necho, Apries, or Pharaoh-Hophra, sent his army into Palestine to the aid of Zedekiah (Jer. xxxvii. 5, 7, 11), so that the siege of Jerusalem was raised for a time, and kindly received the fugitives from the captured city. He seems to have been afterwards attacked by Nebuchadnezzar in his own country. There is, however, no certain account of a complete subjugation of Egypt by the king of Babylon. Amasis, the successor of Apries, had a long and prosperous reign, and somewhat restored the weight of Egypt in the East. But the new power of Persia was to prove even more terrible to his house than Babylon had been to the house of Psammethicus, and the son of Amasis had reigned but six months when Cambyses reduced the country to the condition of a province of his empire B .C . 525. It is not necessary here to give an outline of the subsequent history of Egypt. Its connexion with the history and literature of the Jews is discussed in the articles of the Greek kings of Egypt (PTOLEMY ) and ALEXANDRIA . Mem’phis.—A city of ancient Egypt, situated on the western bank of the Nile, in latitude 30º 6' N. It is mentioned by Isaiah (xix. 13), Jeremiah (ii. 16, xlvi. 14, 19), and Ezekiel (xxx. 13, 16), under the name NOPH ; and by Hosea (ix. 6) under the name of MOPH in Hebrew, and MEMPHIS in our English version. Though some regard Thebes as the more ancient city, the monuments of Memphis are of higher antiquity than those of Thebes. Herodotus dates its foundation from Menes, the first really historical king of Egypt. The era of Menes is not satisfactorily determined. But, indeterminate and conjectural as the early chronology of Egypt yet is, all agree that the known history of the empire begins with Menes, who founded Memphis. The city belongs to the earliest periods of authentic history. The building of Memphis is associated by tradition with a stupendous work of art which has permanently changed the course of the Nile and the face of the Delta. Before the time of Menes the river emerging from the upper valley into the neck of the Delta, bent its course westward toward the hills of the Libyan desert, or at least discharged a large portion of its water through an arm in that direction. Here the generous flood whose yearly inundation gives life and fertility to Egypt, was largely absorbed in the sands of the desert, or wasted in stagnant morasses. It is even conjectured that up to the time of Menes the whole Delta was an uninhabitable marsh. The rivers of Damascus, the Barada and ’Awaj, now lose themselves in the same way in the marshy lakes of the great desert plain south-east of the city. Herodotus informs us, upon the authority of the Egyptian priests of his time, that Menes “by banking up the river at the bend which it forms about a hundred furlongs south of Memphis, laid the ancient channel dry, while he dug a new course for the stream halfway between the two lines of hills.” From his description it appears that Memphis was created upon a marsh reclaimed by the dyke of Menes and drained by his artificial lake. The dyke of Menes began 12 miles south of Memphis, and deflected the main channel of the river about two miles to the eastward. Upon the rise of the Nile, a canal still conducted a portion of its waters westward through the old channel, thus irrigating the plain beyond the city in that direction, while an inundation was guarded against on that side by a large artificial lake or reservoir at Abousir. The skill in engineering which these works required, and which their remains still indicate, argues a high degree of material civilization, at least in the mechanic arts, in the earliest known period of Egyptian history. The city is said to have had a circumference of about 19 miles. Herodotus states, on the authority of the priests, that Menes “built the temple of Hephaestus, which stands within the city, a vast edifice, well worthy of mention” (ii. 99). The divinity whom Herodotus identifies with Haphaestus was Ptah, “the creative power, the maker of all material things.” The temple of Apis was one of the most noted structures of Memphis. It stood opposite the southern portico of the temple

of Ptah; and Psammethicus, who built that gateway, also erected in front of the sanctuary of Apis a magnificent colonnade, supported by colossal statues or Osiride pillars, such as may still be seen at the temple of Medeenet Habou at Thebes (Herod. ii. 153). Through this colonnade the Apis was led with great pomp upon state occasions. At Memphis was the reputed burial place of Isis; it had also a temple to that “myriad-named” divinity. Memphis also had its Serapeium, which probably stood in the western quarter of the city. The sacred cubit and other symbols used in measuring the rise of the Nile, were deposited in the temple of Serapis. The Necropolis, adjacent to Memphis, was on a scale of grandeur corresponding with the city itself. The “city of the pyramids” is a title of Memphis in the hieroglyphics upon the monuments. The great field or plain of the Pyramids lies wholly upon the western bank of the Nile, and extends from Aboo-Roäsh, a little to the north-west of Cairo, to Meydoom, about 40 miles to the south, and thence in a south-westerly direction about 25 miles farther, to the pyramids of Howara and Biahmù in the Fayoura. But the principal seat of the pyramids, the Memphite Necropolis, was in a range of about 15 miles from Sakkara to Gizeh, and in the groups here remaining nearly thirty are probably tombs of the imperial sovereigns of Memphis. Memphis long held its place as a capital; and for centuries a Memphite dynasty ruled over all Egypt. Lepsius, Bunsen, and Brugsch, agree in regarding the 3rd , 4th , 6th, 7th, and 8th dynasties of the Old Empire as Memphite, reaching through a period of about a thousand years. During a portion of this period, however, the chain was broken, or there were contemporaneous dynasties in other parts of Egypt. The overthrow of Memphis was distinctly predicted by the Hebrew prophets (Is. xix. 13; Jer. xlvi. 19). The latest of these predictions was uttered nearly 600 years before Christ, and half a century before the invasion of Egypt by Cambyses (cir. B .C . 525). Herodotus informs us that Cambyses, enraged at the opposition he encountered at Memphis, committed many outrages upon the city. The city never recovered from the blow inflicted by Cambyses. The rise of Alexandria hastened its decline. The Caliph conquerors founded Fostát (Old Cairo) upon the opposite bank of the Nile, a few miles north of Memphis, and brought materials from the old city to build their new capital (A .D . 638). At length so complete was the ruin of Memphis that for a long time its very site was lost. Pococke could find no trace of it. Recent explorations, especially those of Messrs. Mariette and Linaut, have brought to light many of its antiquities, which have been dispersed to the museums of Europe and America. Mig’dol.—Proper name of one or two places in the eastern frontier of Egypt, cognate to Migdol, which appears properly to signify a military watch-tower, or a shepherd’s look-out. This form occurs only in Egyptian geography, and it has therefore been suggested by Champollion to be substituted for an Egyptian name of similar sound, Meshtol or Mejtol. The ancient Egyptian form of Migdol having, however, been found, written in a manner rendering it not improbable that it was a foreign word, MAKTUR or MAKTeRU, as well as so used that it must be of similar meaning to the Hebrew Migdal, the idea of the Egyptian origin and etymology of the latter must be given up. 1. A Migdol is mentioned in the account of the Exodus (Ex. xiv. 2; Num. xxxiii 7, 8). We supposed that the position of the encampment was before or at Pi-hahiroth, behind which was Migdol, and on the other hand Baal-zephon and the sea, these places being near together. The place of the encampment and of the passage of the sea we believe to have been not far from the Persepolitan monument, which is made in Linant’s map the site of the Serapeum. 2. A Migdol is spoken of by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The latter prophet mentions it as a boundary-town, evidently on the eastern border, corresponding to Sevena, or Syene, on the southern (xxix. 10, xxx. 6). In the prophecy of Jeremiah the Jews in Egypt are spoken of as dwelling at Migdol, Tahpanhes, and Noph, and in the country of Pathros (xliv. 1); and in that foretelling, apparently, an invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, Migdol, Noph, and Tahpanhes are again mentioned together (xlvi. 14). It seems plain, from its being spoken of with Memphis, and from Jews dwelling there, that this Migdol was an important town, and not a mere fort, or even military settlement. After this time there is no notice of any place of this

name in Egypt, excepting of Magdolus, by Hecataeus of Miletus, and in the Itinerary of Antoninus, in which Magdolo is placed twelve Roman miles to the southward of Pelusium, in the route from the Serapeum to that town. This latter place most probably represents the Migdol mentioned by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Its position on the route to Palestine would make it both strategically important and populous, neither of which would be the case with a town in the position of the Migdol of the Pentateuch. Gesenius, however, holds that there is but one Migdol mentioned in the Bible (Lex. s. v.). Lepsius distinguishes two Migdols, and considers Magdolo to be the same as the Migdol of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. E. W. Bullinger’s note on Migdol (Exodus 14:2 in “The Companion Bible): “The great fortress on the ‘Shur’ or wall, built to protect Egypt from Asia. The present geography of the Eastern Delta does not, to day, agree with the Biblical record. But its geography in the nineteenth dynasty is well known from papyri, and is in perfect accord with it, as given in Exodus.” Miz’raim.—The usual name of Egypt in the O. T., the dual of Mazor, which is less frequently employed. If the etymology of Mazor be sought in Hebrew it might signify a “mound,” “bulwark,” or “citadel,” or again “distress;” but no one of these meanings is apposite. We prefer, with Gesenius, to look to the Arabic. In the Kámoos, one of the meanings given to Mizr is “red earth or mud,” and this we believe is the true one, from its correspondence to the Egyptian name of the country, KEM, which signifies “black,” and was given to it for the blackness of its alluvial soil. MIZRAIM first occurs in the account of the Hamites in Gen. x., where we read, “And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan” (ver. 6; comp. 1 Chr. i. 8). If the names be in an order of seniority, we can form no theory as to their settlements from their places; but if the arrangement be geographical, the placing may afford a clue to the positions of the Hamite lands. Cush would stand first as the most widely spread of the peoples, extending from Babylon to the upper Nile, the territory of Mizraim would be next to the north, embracing Egypt and its colonies on the north-west and north-east, Phut as dependent on Egypt might follow Mizraim, and Canaan as the northernmost would end the list. Egypt, the “land of Ham,” may have been the primitive seat of these four stocks. In the enumeration of the Mizraites, though we have tribes extending far beyond Egypt, we may suppose that they all had their first seat in Mizraim, and spread thence, as is distinctly said of the Philistines. Here the order seems to be geographical, though the name is not so clear of the Canaanites. Mizraim, therefore, like Cush, and perhaps Ham, geographically represents a centre whence colonies went forth in the remotest period of post-diluvian history. We regard the distribution of the Mizraites as showing that their colonies were but a part of the great migration that gave the Cushites command of the Indian Ocean, and which explains the affinity the Egyptian monuments show us between the pre-Hellenic Cretans and Carians (the latter no doubt the Leleges of the Greek writers) and the Philistines. In the use of the names Mazor and Mizraim for Egypt there can be no doubt that the dual indicates the two regions into which the country has always been divided by nature as well as by its inhabitants. It has been supposed that Mazor, as distinct from Mizraim, signifies Lower Egypt; but this conjecture cannot be maintained. Nile.—1. Names of the Nile.—the Hebrew names of the Nile, excepting one that is of ancient Egyptian origin, all distinguish it from other rivers. They are Shâchôr, “the black,” a name perhaps of the same sense as Nile; Yeôr, “the river,” a word originally Egyptian; “the river of Egypt;” “the Nachal of Egypt;” and “the rivers of Cush” or “Ethiopia.” It must be observed that the word “Nile” nowhere occurs in the A. V. (a.) Shâchôr, “the black.” The idea of blackness conveyed by this word has, as we should expect in Hebrew, a wide sense. It seems, however, to be indicative of a very dark colour. That the Nile is meant by Shihor is evident from its mention as equivalent to Yeôr, “the river,” and as

a great river (Is. xxiii. 3); from its being put as the western boundary of the Promised Land (Josh. xiii. 3; 1 Chr. xiii. 5), instead of “the river of Egypt” (Gen. xv. 18); and from its being spoken of as the great stream of Egypt, just as the Euphrates was of Assyria (Jer. ii. 18). If, out this is be no means certain, the name Nile be really indicative of the colour of the river, it must be compared with the Sanskrit Nîlah, “blue” especially, probably “dark blue,” also even “black,” and must be considered to be the Indo-European equivalent of Shihor. (b) Yeôr is the same as the ancient Egyptian ATUR, AUR, and the Coptic eiero or iaro. Yeôr, in the singular, is used of the Nile alone, excepting a passage in Daniel (xii. 5, 6, 7), where another river, perhaps the Tigris (comp. x. 4), is intended by it. In the plural this name is applied to the branches and canals of the Nile (Ps. lxxviii. 44; Ezek. xxix. 3, seqq., xxx. 12); but it is also used of the streams or channels, in a general sense, when no particular ones are indicated (see Is. xxxiii. 21; Job xxviii. 10). It is thus evident that this name specially designates the Nile. (c.) “The river of Egypt” (Gen. xv. 18). (d.) “The Nachal of Egypt” has generally been understood to mean “the torrent” or “brook of Egypt,” and to designate a desert stream at Rhinocorura, now El-’Areesh, on the eastern border. This name must signify the Nile, for it occurs in cases parallel to those where Shihor is employed (Num. xxxiv. 5; Josh. xv. 4, 47; 1 K. viii. 65; 2 K. xxiv. 7; Is. xxvii. 12), both designating the easternmost or Pelusiac branch of the river as the border of the Philistines territory, where the Egyptians equally put the border of their country towards Kanaan or Kanana (Canaan). It remains for us to decide whether the name signify the “brook of Egypt,” or whether Nachal be a Hebrew form of Nile. The Hebrew word nachal might have been adopted as very similar in sound to an original proper name. (e.) “The rivers of Cush” are alone mentioned in the extremely difficult prophecy contained in Is. xviii. From the use of the plural we must suppose them to be the confluents or tributaries of the Nile. With the ancient Egyptians the river was sacred, and had, besides its ordinary name already given, a sacred name, under which it was worshipped, HAPEE , or HAPEE -MU , “the abyss,” or “the abyss of waters,” or “the hidden.” Corresponding to the two regions of Egypt, the Upper Country and the Lower, the Nile was called HAPEE -RES, “the Southern Nile,” and HAPEE -MEHEET , “the Northern Nile, the former name applying to the river in Nubia as well as in Upper Egypt. The god Nilus was one of the lesser divinities. 2.—Description of the Nile.—We cannot as yet determine the length of the Nile, although recent discoveries have narrowed the question. There is scarcely a doubt that its largest confluent is fed by the great lakes on and south of the equator. It has been traced upwards for about 2700 miles, measured by its course, not in a direct line, and its extent is probably upwards of 1000 miles more, making it longer than even the Mississippi, and the longest of rivers. To trace it downwards we must first go to equatorial Africa, the mysterious half-explored home of the negroes, where animal and vegetable life flourishes around and in the vast swamp-land that waters the chief part of the continent. Here are two great shallow lakes, one nearer to the coast than the other. From the more eastern (the Ukerewe, which is on the equator), a chief tributary of the White Nile probably takes its rise, and the more western (the Ujeejee) may feed another tributary. Captain Speke (Journal, p. 610) concludes that “the White River, which issues from the N’yanza at the Ripon Falls, is the true or parent Nile.” Great, however, as is the body of water of the longer of the two chief confluents, it is the shorter (the Bahr el-Azrak, or Blue River) which brings down the alluvial soil that makes the Nile the great fertilizer of Egypt and Nubia. The Bahr el-Azrak rises in the mountains of Abyssinia. The two streams form a junction at Khartoom, now the seat of government of Soodán, or the Black Country under Egyptian rule. Further to the north another great river, the Athara, rising, like the Bahr el-Azrak, in Abyssinia, falls into the main stream, which, for the remainder of its course, does not receive one tributary more. Throughout the rest of the valley the Nile does not greatly vary, excepting that in Lower Nubia, through the fall of its level by the giving way of a barrier in ancient times, it does not inundate the valley on either hand. From time to time its course is impeded by cataracts or rapids, sometimes extending many miles, until, at the First Cataract, the boundary of Egypt, it surmounts the last obstacle. After a course of about 550 miles, at a short distance below Cairo and the Pyramids, the river parts into two great branches, which water the Delta, nearly forming its boundaries to the east

and west, and flowing into the shallow Mediterranean. The great annual phenomenon of the Nile is the inundation, the failure of which produces a famine, for Egypt is virtually without rain (see Zech. xiv. 17, 18). At Khartoom the increase of the river is observed early in April, but in Egypt the first signs of rising occur about the summer solstice, and generally the regular increase does not begin until some days after, the inundation commencing about two months after the solstice. The river then pours, through canals and cuttings in the bank, which are a little higher than the rest of the soil, over the valley, which it covers with sheets of water. It attains to its greatest height about, or not long after, the autumnal equinox, and then, falling more slowly than it had risen, sinks to its lowest point at the end of nine months, there remaining stationary for a few days before it again begins to rise. The inundations are very various, and when they are but a few feet deficient or excessive cause great distress. The Nile in Egypt is always charged with alluvium, especially during the inundation; but the annual deposit, excepting under extraordinary circumstances, is very small in comparison with what would be conjectured by any one unacquainted with subjects of this nature. Inquirers have come to different results as to the rate, but the discrepancy does not generally exceed an inch in a century. The ordinary average increase of the soil in Egypt is about four inches and a half in a century. The cultivable soil in Egypt is wholly the deposit of the Nile, but it is obviously impossible to calculate, from its present depth, when the river first began to flow in the rocky bed now so deeply covered with the rich alluvium. In Upper Egypt the Nile is a very broad stream, flowing rapidly between high, steep mud-banks, scarped by the constant rush of the water, which from time to time washes portions away, and stratified by the regular deposit. On either side rise the bare yellow mountains, usually a few hundred feet high, rarely a thousand, looking from the river like cliffs. Frequently the mountain on either side approaches the river in a rounded promontory. Rarely both mountains confine the river in a narrow bed, rising steeply on either side from a deep rock-cut channel through which the water pours with a rapid current. In Lower Egypt the chief differences are that the view is spread out in one rich plain, only bounded on the east and west by the desert, of which the edge is low and sandy, unlike the mountains above, though essentially the same, and that the two branches of the river are narrower than the undivided stream. On either bank, during Low Nile, extend fields of corn and barley, and near the riverside stretch long groves of palm-trees. The villages rise from the level plain, standing upon mounds, often ancient sites, and surrounded by palm-groves, and yet higher dark-brown mounds mark where of old stood downs, with which often “their memorial is perished” (Ps. ix. 6). The banks of the river are enlivened by the women who come down to draw water, and, like Pharaoh’s daughter, to bathe, and the herds of kine and buffaloes which are driven down to drink and wash, or to graze on the grass of the swamps, like the good kine that Pharaoh saw in his dream as “he stood by the river,” which were “coming up out of the river,” and “fed in the marsh-grass” (Gen. xli. 1, 2). The river itself abounds in fish, which anciently formed a chief means of sustenance to the inhabitants of the country. The Israelites in the desert looked back with regret to the fish of Egypt: “We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely” (Num. xi. 5). In the Thebaïs crocodiles are found, and during Low Nile they may be seen basking in the sun upon the sand-banks. The crocodile is constantly spoken of in the Bible as the emblem of Pharaoh, especially in the prophecies of Ezekiel. The great difference between the Nile of Egypt in the present day and in ancient times is caused by the failure of some of its branches, and the ceasing of some of its chief vegetable products; and the chief change in the aspect of the cultivable land, as dependent on the Nile, is the result of the ruin of the fishpools and their conduits, and the consequent decline of the fisheries. The river was famous for its seven branches, and under the Roman dominion eleven were counted, of which, however, there were but seven principal ones. Herodotus notices that there were seven, of which he says that two, the present Damietta and Rosetta branches, were originally artificial, an he therefore speaks of “the five mouths” (ii. 10). Now, as for a long period past, there are no navigable and unobstructed branches but these two that Herodotus distinguishes as in origin works of man. The monuments and the narratives of ancient writers show us in the Nile of Egypt in the old times a stream

bordered by red flags and reeds, the covert of abundant wild-fowl, and bearing on its waters the fragrant flowers of the various-colored lotus. Now in Egypt scarcely any reeds or water-plants—the famous papyrus being nearly if not quite extinct, and the lotus almost unknown—are to be seen, excepting in the marshes near the Mediterranean. Of old the great river must have shown a more fair and busy scene than now. Boats of many kinds were ever passing along it, by the painted walls of temples, and the gardens that extended around the light summer pavilions, from the pleasuregalley, with one great square sail, white or with variegated pattern, and many oars, to the little papyrus skiff, dancing on the water, and carrying the seekers of pleasure where they could shoot with arrows, or knock down with the throw-stick, the wild-fowl that abounded among the reeds, or engage in the dangerous chace of the hippopotamus or the crocodile. The Nile is constantly before us in the history of Israel in Egypt. Into it the male children were cast; in it, or rather in some canal or pool, was the ark of Moses put, and found by Pharaoh’s daughter when she went down to bathe. When the plagues were sent, the sacred river—a main support of the people—and its waters everywhere, were turned into blood. No-a’mon (Nah. iii. 8), No (Jer. xlvi. 25; Ez. xxx, 14, 15, 16).—a city of Egypt, Thebae (Thebes), or Diospolis Magna. The second part of the first form is the name of AMEN, the chief divinity of Thebes, mentioned or alluded to in connexion with this place in Jeremiah, “Behold, I will punish Amon in No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with their gods and their kings;” and perhaps also alluded to in Ezekiel (xxx. 15). There is a difficulty as to the meaning of No. It seems most reasonable to suppose that No is a Shemitic name, and that Amon is added in Nahum (l. c.) to distinguish Thebes from some other place bearing the same name, or on account of the connexion of Amen with that city. Jerome supposes No to be either Alexandria or Egypt itself. Champollion takes it to be Diospolis in Lower Egypt; but Gesenius (l. c.), well observes that it would not then be compared in Nahum to Ninevah. This and the evidence of the Assyrian record leave no doubt that it was Thebes. The description of No-Amon, as “situate among the rivers, the waters round about it” (Nah. l. c.), remarkably characterizes Thebes. Noph.—(Is. xix. 13, Jer. ii. 16, Ez. xxx. 13, 16), MOPH (Hos. ix. 6), a city of Egypt, Memphis. These forms are contracted from the ancient Egyptian common name, MEN-NUFR, or MEN-NEFRU, “the good abode,” or perhaps “the abode of the good one.” The Hebrew forms are regarded as representing colloquial forms of the name, current with the Shemites, if not with the Egyptians also. It is probable that the epithet “good” refers to Osiris, whose sacred animal Apis was here worshipped. As the great upper Egyptian city is characterised in Nahum as “situate among the rivers” (iii. 8), so in Hosea the lower Egyptian one is distinguished by its Necropolis. On.—a town of Lower Egypt, which is mentioned in the Bible under at least two names, BETH SHEMESH (Jer. xliii.13), corresponding to the ancient Egyptian sacred name HA-RA, “the abode of the sun,” and that above, corresponding to the common name AN, and perhaps also spoken of as Ir-haheres. The ancient Egyptian common name is written AN or AN-T, and perhaps ANU; but the essential part of the word is AN, and probably no more was pronounced. There were two towns called AN: Heliopolis, distinguished as the northern, AN-MEHEET; and Hermonthis, in Upper Egypt as the southern, AN-RES. Heliopolis was situate on the east side of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, just below the point of the Delta, about twenty miles north-east of Memphis. It was before the Roman time the capital of the Heliopolite Nome, which was included in Lower Egypt. Now its site is above the point of the Delta, which is the junction of the Phatmetic, or Damietta branch and the Bolbitine, or Rosetta, and about ten miles to the north-east of Cairo. In the earliest times it must have been subject to the 1st dynasty so long as their sole rule lasted, which was perhaps for no more than the reigns of Menes (B .C . cir. 2717) and Athothis: it doubtless next came under the government of the Memphites, of the 3rd (B .C . cir. 2640), 4th , and 6th dynasties: it then passed into the hands of the

Diospolites of the 12th dynasty, and the Shepherds of the 15th . During the long period of anarchy that followed the rule of the 12th dynasty, when Lower Egypt was subject to the Shepherd kings, Heliopolis must have been under the government of strangers. With the accession of the 18th dynasty, it was probably recovered by the Egyptians, and thenceforward held by them. The chief object of worship at Heliopolis was the sun, under the forms RA, the sun simply, whence the sacred name of the place, HA-RA, “the abode of the sun,” and ATUM, the setting sun, or sun of the nether world. The temple of the sun, described by Strabo, is now only represented by the single beautiful obelisk, which is of red granite, 68 feet 2 inches high above the pedestal, and bears a dedication, showing that it was sculptured in or after his 30th year (cir. 2050) by Sesertesen I., first king of the 12th dynasty (B .C . cir. 2080–2045). Heliopolis was anciently famous for its learning, and Eudoxus and Plato studied under its priests: but, from the extent of the mounds, it seems to have been always a small town. The first mention of this place in the Bible is in the history of Joseph, to whom we read Pharaoh gave “to wife Asenath the daughter of Poti-pherah, priest of On” (Gen. xli. 45, comp. ver. 50, and xlvi. 20). According to the LXX version, On was one of the cities built for Pharaoh by the oppressed Israelites, for it mentions three “strong cities” instead of the two “treasure cities” of the Heb., adding On to Pithom and Raamses. Heliopolis lay at no great distance from the land of Goshen and from Raamses, and probably Pithom also. Isaiah has been supposed to speak of On when he prophecies that one of the five cities in Egypt that should speak the language of Canaan should be called Ir-ha-heres, which may mean the City of the Sun, whether we take “heres” to be a Hebrew or an Egyptian word; but the reading “a city of destruction” seems preferable, and we have no evidence that there was any large Jewish settlement at Heliopolis, although there may have been at one time, from its nearness to the town of Onias. Jeremiah speaks of On under the name Bethshemesh, “the house of the sun,” (xliii. 13). Perhaps it was on account of the many false gods of Heliopolis, that, in Ezekiel (xxx. 17), On is written Aven, by a change in the punctuation, and so made to signify “vanity,” and especially the vanity of idolatry. After the age of the prophets we hear no more in Scripture of Heliopolis. Local tradition, however, points it out as a place where our Lord and the Virgin came, when Joseph brought them into Egypt. Pi-bes’eth.—A town of Lower Egypt, mentioned but once in the Bible (Ez. xxx. 17). In hieroglyphics its name is written BAHEST, BAST, and HA-BAHEST. The Coptic forms are Bast, with the article Pi prefixed, Poubaste, Poubast, &c., and the Greek Âïýâáóôéò, Âïýâáóôïò. Bubastiš was situate on the west bank of the Pelusiac or Bubastite branch of the Nile, in the Bubastite nome, about 40 miles from the central part of Memphis. Herodotus speaks of its site as having been raised by those who dug the canals for Sesostris, and afterwards by the labour of criminals under Sabacôs the Ethiopian, or rather the Ethiopian dominion. He mentions the temple of the goddess Bubastis as well worthy of description, being more beautiful than any other known to him. The temple is entirely ruined, but the name of Rameses II. of the xixth dynasty, Userken I. (Osorchon I.) of the xxiind, and Nekht-harheb (Nectanebo I.), of the xxxth, have been found here, as well as that of the eponymous goddess BAST. There also remains of the ancient houses of the town, and “amidst the houses on the N. W. side are the thick walls of a fort which protected the temple below” (Notes by Sir G. Wilkinson in Rawlinson’s Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 219, plan, and 102). Bubastis thus had a fort, besides being strong from its height. The goddess BAST, who was here the chief object of worship was the same as PESHT, the goddess of fire. Both names accompany a lion-headed figure, and the cat was sacred to them. Herodotus considers the goddess Bubastis to be the same as Artemis (ii. 137). Path’rusim. [PATHROS .] Path’ros.—Gent. noun PATHRUSIM , a part of Egypt, and a Mizraite tribe. That Pathros was in Egypt admits of no question: we hav to attempt to decide its position more nearly. In the list of the Mizraites, the Pathrusim occur after the Naphtuhim, and before the Casluhim; the latter being followed by the notice of the Philistines, and by the Caphtorim (Gen. x. 13, 14; 1 Chr. i. 12). Pathros

is mentioned in the prophecies of Isaiah (xi. 11), Jeremiah (xliv. 1, 15), and Ezekiel (xxix. 14, xxx. 13–18). From the place of the Pathrusim in the list of the Mizraites, they might be supposed to have settled in Lower Egypt, or the more northern part of Upper Egypt. It seems, if the order be geographical, as there is reason to suppose, that it is to be inferred that the Pathrusim were seated in Lower Egypt, or not much above it, unless there be any transposition. If the original order were Pathrusim, Caphtorim, Casluhim, then the first might have settled in the highest part of Upper Egypt, and the other two below them. The occurrences in Jeremiah seem to favour the idea that Pathros was part of lower Egypt, or the whole of that region. The notice by Ezekiel of Pathros as the land of the birth of the Egyptians seems to favour the idea that it was part of or all Upper Egypt. Pathros has been connected with the Pathyrite nome, the Phaturite of Pliny (H. N. v. 9, §47), in which Thebes was situate. This identification may be as old as the LXX. The discovery of the Egyptian name of the town after which the nome was called puts the inquiry on a safer basis. It is written HA-HAT-HER, “The Abode of Hather,” the Egyptian Venus. It may perhaps have sometimes been written P-HA-HAT-HER, in which case the P-H and T-H would have coalesced in the Hebrew form, as did T-H in Caphtor. On the evidence here brought forward, it seems reasonable to consider Pathros to be part of Upper Egypt, and to trace its name in that of the Pathyrite nome. But this is only a very conjectural identification, which future discoveries may overthrow. Pha’roah.—The common title of the native kings of Egypt in the Bible, corresponding to P-RA or PHRA, “the Sun,” of the hieroglyphics. As several kings are only mentioned by the title “Pharoah” in the Bible, it is important to endeavor to discriminate them. We shall therefore state what is known respecting them in order.—1. The Pharaoh of Abraham. The scripture narrative does not afford us any clear indications for the identification of the Pharaoh of Abraham. At the time at which the patriarch went into Egypt, according to Hales’s as well as Ussher’s chronology, it is generally held that the country, or at least Lower Egypt, was ruled by the Shepherd kings, of whom the first and most powerful line was the xvth dynasty, the undoubted territories of which would be first entered by one coming from the east. The date at which Abraham visited Egypt was about B .C . 2081, which would accord with the time of Salatis, the head of the xvth dynasty, according to our reckoning.—2. The Pharaoh of Joseph.—The chief points for the identification of the line to which this Pharaoh belonged, are that he was a despotic monarch, ruling all of Egypt, who followed Egyptian customs, but did not hesitate to set them aside when he thought fit; that he seems to have desired to gain complete power over the Egyptians; and that he favoured strangers. These particulars certainly appear to lend support to the idea that he was an Egyptianized foreigner rather than an Egyptian. Baron Bunsen supposed that he was Sesertesen I., the head of the xiith dynasty, on account of the mention in a hieroglyphic inscription of a famine in that king’s reign. This identification, although receiving some support from the statement of Herodotus, that Sesotris, a name reasonably traced to Sesertesen, divided the land and raised his chief revenue from the rent paid by the holders, must be abandoned, since the calamity recorded does not approach Joseph’s famine in character, and the age is almost certainly too remote. If, discarding the idea that Joseph’s Pharaoh was an Egyptian, we turn to the old view that he was one of the Shepherd Kings, a view almost inevitable if we infer that he ruled during the Shepherd-period, we are struck with the fitness of all the circumstance of the Biblical narrative. It is stated by Eusebius that the Pharaoh to whom Jacob came was the Shepherd Apophis. Apophis belonged to the xvth dynasty, which was certainly of Shepherds, and the most powerful foreign line, for it seems clear that there was at least one if not two more. This dynasty, according to our view of Egyptian chronology, rules for either 284 years (Africanus), or 259 years 10 months (Josephus), from about B .C . 2080. If Hales’s chronology, which we would slightly modify, be correct, the government of Joseph fell under the dynasty, commencing about B .C . 1876, which would be during the reign of the last but one or perhaps the last king of the dynasty, was possibly in the time of Apophis, who ended the line according to Africanus. It is to be remarked that this dynasty is said to have been of Phoenicians. This king appears to have reigned from Joseph’s

appointment (or, perhaps, somewhat earlier) until Jacob’s death, a period of at least 26 years, from B .C . cir. 1876 to 1850, and to have been the fifth or sixth king of the xvth dynasty.—3. The Pharaoh of the Oppression.—The first persecutor of the Israelites may be distinguished as the Pharaoh of the Oppression, from the second, the Pharaoh of the Exodus, especially as he commenced, and probably long carried on, the persecution. The general view is that he was an Egyptian. He has been generally supposed to have been a king of the xviiith or xixth dynasty: we believe that he was of a line earlier than either. The chief points in the evidence in favor of the former opinion are the name of the city Raamses, whence it has been argued that one of the oppressors was a king Rameses, and the probable change of line. The first king of this name known was head of the xixth dynasty, or last king of the xviiith. Manetho says the Israelites left Egypt in the reign of Menptah, who was greatgrandson of the first Rameses, and son and successor of the second. The view that this Pharaoh was of the beginning or middle of the xviiith dynasty seems at first sight extremely probable, especially if it were supposed that the Pharaoh of Joseph was a Shepherd king. If we assign him to the age before the xviiith dynasty, which our view of Hebrew chronology would probably oblige us to do, we have still to determine whether he were a shepherd or an Egyptian. If a Shepherd, he must have been of the xvith or the xviith dynasty. The reign of this king probably commenced a little before the birth of Moses, which we place B .C . 1732, and seems to have lasted upwards of forty years, perhaps much more.—4. The Pharaoh of the Exodus.—What is known of the Pharaoh of the Exodus is rather biographical than historical. It does not add much to our means of identifying the line of the oppressors excepting by the indications of race his character affords. His character finds its parallel among the Assyrians rather than the Egyptians. Respecting the time of this king we can only say that he was reigning for about a year or more before the Exodus, which we place B .C . 1652. —5. Pharaoh, father-in-law of Mered.—In the genealogies of the tribe of Judah, mention is made of the daughter of a Pharaoh, married to an Israelite; “Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, which Mered took” (1 Chr. iv. 18). This marraige may tend to aid us in determining the age of the sojourn in Egypt. It is perhaps less probable that an Egyptian Pharaoh would have given his daughter in marriage to an Israelite, than that a Shepherd king would have done so, before the oppression.—6. Pharaoh, fatherin-law of Hadad the Edomite.—For the identification of this Pharaoh we have chronological indications, and the name of his wife. Unfortunately, however, the history of Egypt at this time is extremely obscure, neither the monuments nor Manetho giving us clear information as to the kings. It appears that towards the latter part of the xxth dynasty the high-priests of Amen, the god of Thebes, gained great power, and at last supplanted the Rameses family, at least in Upper Egypt. At the same time a line of Tanite kings, Manetho’s xxist dynasty, seems to have ruled in Lower Egypt. It may be reasonably supposed that the Pharaoh or Pharaohs spoken of in the Bible as ruling in the time of David and Solomon were Tanites, as Tanis was nearest to the Israelite territory. According to Africanus, the list of the xxist dynasty is as follows:—Smendes, 26 years; Psusennes, 46; Nephelcheres, 4; Amenothis, 9; Osochor, 6; Psinaches, 9; Psusennes, 14; but Eusebius gives the second king 41, and the last, 35 years, and his numbers make up the sum of 130 years, which Africanus and he agree in assigning to the dynasty. If we take the numbers of Eusebius, Osochor would probably be the Pharaoh to whom Hadad fled, and Psussenes II. the father-in-law of Solomon; but the numbers of Africanus would substitute Psussenes I, and probably Psinaches.—7. Pharaoh, father-in-law of Solomon.—The mention that the queen was brought into the city of David, while Solomon’s house, and the Temple, and the city-wall, were building, shows that the marriage took place not later than the eleventh year of the king, when the Temple was finished, having been commenced in the fourth year (1 K. vi. 1, 37, 38). It appears that the marriage must have taken place between about 24 and 11 years before Shishak’s accession. It must be recollected that it seems certain that Solomon’s father-in-law was not the Pharaoh who was reigning when Hadad left Egypt. Both Pharaohs cannot yet be identified in Manetho’s list. This Pharaoh led an expedition to Palestine (1 K. ix. 16). The next kings of Egypt mentioned in the Bible are Shishak, probably Zerah, and So. The first and second of these were of the xxiind dynasty, if the identification of Zerah with

Userken be accepted, and the third was doubtless one of the two Shebeks of the xxvth dynasty, which was of Ethiopians.—8. Pharaoh, the opponent of Sennacherib.—This Pharaoh (Is. xxxvi. 6) can only be the Sethos whom Herodotus mentions as the opponent of Sennacherib, and who may be reasonably supposed to be the Zet of Manetho, the last king of his xxiiird dynasty. Tirhakah, as an Ethiopian, whether then ruling Egypt or not, is, like So, apparently not called Pharaoh.—9. Pharaoh Necho.—The first mention in the Bible of a proper name with the title Pharaoh is in the case of Pharaoh Necho, who is also called Necho simply. His name is written Necho and Nechoh, and in hieroglyphics NEKU. This king was of the Saïte xxvith dynasty, of which Manetho makes him either the fifth ruler (Africanus) or the sixth (Eusebius). Herodotus calls him Nekôs, and assigns to him a reign of sixteen years, which is confirmed by the monuments. He seems to have been an enterprising king, as he is related to have attempted to complete the canal connecting the Red Sea to the Nile, and to have sent an expedition of Phoenicians to circumnavigate Africa, which was successfully accomplished. At the commencement of his reign (B .C . 610) he made war against the king of Assyria, and, being encountered on his way by Josiah, defeated and slew the king of Judah at Megiddo (2 K. xxiii. 29, 30; 2 Chr. xxxv. 20–24). Necho seems to have soon returned to Egypt: perhaps he was on his way there when he deposed Jehoahaz. The army was probably posted at Carchemish, and was there defeated by Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Necho (B .C . 607), that king not being, as it seems, then at its head (Jer. xlvi. 1, 2, 6, 10). This battle lead to the loss of all the Asiatic dominions of Egypt (2 K. xxiv. 7).—10. Pharaoh Hophra.—The next king of Egypt mentioned in the Bible is Pharaoh Hophra, the second successor of Necho, from whom he was separated by the six years’ reign of Psammethicus II. The name Hophra is in hieroglyphics WAH-(P)RA-HAT, and the last syllable is equally omitted by Herodotus, who writes Apries, and by Manetho, who writes Uaprhis. He came to the throne about B .C . 589, and ruled nineteen years. Herodotus makes him son of Psammethicus II., whom he calls Psammis, and great-grandson of Psammethicus I. In the Bible it is related that Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, was aided by a Pharaoh against Nebuchadnezzar, in fulfillment of a treaty, and that an army came out of Egypt, so that the Chaldeans were obliged to raise the siege of Jerusalem. The city was first besieged in the ninth year of Zedekiah, B .C . 590, and was captured in his eleventh year, B .C . 588. It was evidently continuously invested for a length of time before it was taken, so that it is most probable that Pharaoh’s expedition took place during 590 or 589. There may, therefore, be some doubt whether Psammethichus II, be not the king here spoken of; but it must be remembered that the siege may be supposed to have lasted some time before the Egyptians could have heard of it and march to relieve the city, and also that Hophra may have come to the throne as early as B .C . 590. The Egyptian army returned without effecting its purpose (Jer. xxxvii. 5–8; Ez. xvii. 11–18; comp. 2 K. xxv. 1–4). No subsequent Pharaoh is mentioned in Scripture, but there are predictions doubtless referring to the misfortunes of later princes until the second Persian conquest, when the prophecy, “there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt” (Ez. xxx. 13) was fulfilled. *Josiah's death is recorded in "The Companion Bible" at 500 B.C. E. W. Bullinger's note on Pharaoh-Nechoh (I Kings 23:29) says, "Pharaoh-nechoh: i.e. Nechoh II, the sixth king of the twenty-sixth dynasty. His father was a tributary to Assyria, but had secured independence for Egypt." The identities of Pharaoh-Necho agree here, but the dates during which he reigned do not. **E. W. Bullinger's note on Jeremiah 37:5: "Pharaoh's: i.e. Pharaoh Hophra's. Cp. 44:30. The Apries of Herodotus, and fourth successor of Psammethicus on the throne of Egypt. He came to help Zedekiah (Ezek. 17:15-17), but was defeated by the Chaldeans, and Egypt subdued. Cp. 2 Kings 24:7. Ezek. 29:1-16, and chs. 30-33. Also Jer. 43:9-12. Cp. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, eleventh new Cambridge edition (vol. ii, p. 230).

Pharaoh’s Daughter; Pharaoh, the Daughter of.—Three Egyptian princesses, daughters of the Pharaohs, are mentioned in the Bible.—1. The preserver of Moses, daughter of the Pharaoh who first oppressed the Israelites (Ex. ii. 5–10). She appears from her conduct towards Moses to have been an heiress to the throne. Artapenus, or Artabenus, a historian of uncertain date, calls this princess Merrhis, and her father, the oppressor, Palmanothes, and relates that she was married to Chenephres, who ruled in the country above Memphis. The tradition is apparently of little value. 2.—Bithiah, wife of Mered an Israelite, daughter of a Pharaoh of uncertain age, probably of about the time of the Exodus (1 Chr. iv. 18).—3. A wife of Solomon, most probably daughter of a king of the xxist dynasty (1 K. iii. 1, vii. 8, ix. 24). [See PHARAOH , 7.] Pharaoh, the Wife of. The wife of one Pharaoh, the king who received Hadad the Edomite, is mentioned in Scripture. She is called “queen,” and her name, Tahpenes, is given. Her husband was most probably of the xxist dynasty. [TAHPENES ; PHARAOH , 6.] Ptolemy. [“Ptolemy” was the title for the Greek kings of Egypt. The Bible does not mention them by name, but they are widely believed to be referred to in the “king of the south” prophecies in Daniel 11. Since they have no direct mention in the Bible, they are not treated in this study.] River of Egypt.—Two Hebrew terms are thus rendered in the A. V. 1. Nehar mitstraim (Gen. xv. 18), “the river of Egypt,” that is, the Nile, and here the Pelusiac or easternmost branch. 2. Nachal mitsraim (Num. xxxiv. 5; Josh. xv. 4, 47; 1 K. viii. 65; 2 K. xxiv. 7; Is. xxvii. 12, in the last passage translated “the stream of Egypt”). It is the common opinion that this second term designates a desert stream on the border of Egypt, still occasionally flowing in the valley called Wádi-l-’Aresh. The centre of the valley is occupied by the bed of this torrent, which only flows after rains, as is usual in the desert valleys. The stream is first mentioned as the point where the southern border of the Promised Landed touched the Mediterranean, which formed its western border (Num. xxxiv. 3–6). In the later history we find Solomon’s kingdom extending from the “entering in of Hamath unto the river of Egypt” (1 K. viii. 65), and Egypt limited in the same manner where the loss of the eastern province is mentioned (2. K. xxiv. 7). In certain parallel passages the Nile is distinctly specified instead of “the Nachal of Egypt” (Gen. xv. 18; comp. Josh. xiii. 2, 3). If, with the generality of critics, we think that the Nachal-Mizraim is the Wádi-l-’Aresh, we must conclude that the name Shihor is also applied to the latter, although elsewhere designating the Nile, for we have seen that Nachal-Mizraim and Shihor are used interchangeably to designate a stream on the border of the Promised Land. The word Nachal may be cited on either side. Certainly in Hebrew it is rather used for a torrent or stream than for a river; but the name Nachal-Mizraim may come from a lost dialect, and the parallel Arabic word wádee , though ordinarily used for valleys and their winter-torrents, as in the case of the Wádi-l-’Aresh itself, has been employed by the Arabs in Spain for true rivers, the Guadalquivir, &c. It may, however, be suggested, that in Nachal-Mizraim we have the ancient form of the Neel-Misr of the Arabs, and that Nachal was adopted from its similarity of sound to the original of ÍåÃïò. Shishak.—King of Egypt, the Sheshenk I. of the monuments, first sovereign of the Bubastite xxiind dynasty. Chronology.—The reign of Shishak offers the first determined synchronisms of Egyptian and Hebrew history. The synchronism of Shishak and Solomon, and that of Shishak and Rehoboam may be nearly fixed, as shown in the article CHRONOLOGY . The first year of Shishak would about correspond to the 26th of Solomon, and the 20th to the 5th of Rehoboam. The synchronism of Zerah and Asa is more difficult to determine. It seems most probable that the war with Zerah took place early in Asa’s reign, before his 15th year, and thus also early in the reign of Usarken II. The

chronological place of these synchronisms may be calculated on the Egyptian as well as the Biblical side. The evidence from the data supplied by the monuments would lead us to place the accession of Sheshenk I B .C . 980 or 983, or else seven years later than each of these dates. The Biblical date of Sheshenk’s conquest of Judah has been computed to be B .C . cir. 969, and this having taken place in his 20th year, his accession would have been B .C . cir. 988. The progress of Assyrian discovery has, however, induced some writers to propose to shorten the chronology by taking 35 years as the length of Manasseh’s reign, in which case all earlier dates would have to be lowered 20 years. the proposed reduction would place the accession of Sheshenk I. B .C . cir. 968, and this date is certainly more in accordance with those derived from the Egyptian data than the higher date, but these data are too approximative for us to lay any stress upon minute results from them. History.—The origin of the royal line of which Sheshenk I. was the head is extremely obscure. Mr. Birch’s discovery that several of the names of the family are Shemitic has led to the supposition that it was of Assyrian or Babylonian origin. Lepsius gives a genealogy of Sheshenk I. from the tablet of Har-p-sen from Serapeum, which, if correct, decides the question. In this, Sheshenk I. is son of a chief Namuret, whose ancestors, excepting his mother, who is called “royal mother,” not as Lepsius gives it, “royal daughter,” are all untitled persons, and, all but the princess, bear foreign, apparently Shemitic names. But as M. de Rougé observes, this genealogy cannot be conclusively made out from the tablet, though we think it more probable than he does. Sheshenk I., on his accession, must have found the state weakened by internal strife and deprived of much of its foreign influence. In the time of the later kings of the Rameses family, two, if not three, sovereigns had a real or titular authority; but before the accession of Sheshenk it is probable that their lines had been united: certainly towards the close of the xxist dynasty a Pharaoah was powerful enough to lead an expedition into Palestine and capture Gezer (I K. ix. 16). Sheshenk took as title of his standard, “He who attains royalty by uniting the two regions [of Egypt].” He himself probably married the heiress of the Rameses family, while his son and successor Usarken appears to have taken to wife the daughter, and perhaps heiress, of the Tanite xxist dynasty. Probably it was not until late in his reign that he was able to carry on the foreign wars of the earlier king who captured Gezer. It is observable that we trace a change of dynasty in the policy that induced Sheshenk at the beginning of his reign to receive the fugitive Jeroboam (I K. xi. 40). The king of Egypt does not seem to have commenced hostilities during the powerful reign of Solomon. It was not until the division of the tribes, that, probably, at the instigation of Jeroboam, he attacked Rehoboam. The following particulars of this war are related in the Bible: “In the fifth year of king Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, because they had transgressed against the LORD , with twelve hundred chariots, and threescore thousand horsemen: and the people [were] without number that came with him out of Egypt; the Lubim, the Sukiim, and the Cushim. And he took the fenced cities which [pertained] to Judah, and came to Jerusalem” (2 Chr. xii. 2–4). Shishak did not pillage Jerusalem, but exacted all the treasures of his city from Rehoboam, and apparently made him tributary (5, 9–12, esp. 8). The narrative in Kings mentions only the invasion and the exaction (1 K. xiv. 25, 26). The strong cities of Rehoboam are thus enumerated in an earlier passage: “And Rehoboam dwelt in Jerusalem, and built cities for defence in Judah. He built even Beth-lehem, and Etam, and Tekoa, and Beth-zur, and Shoco, and Adullam, and Gath, and Mareshah, and Ziph, and Adoraim, and Lachish, and Azekah, and Zorah, and Aijalon, and Hebron, which [are] in Judah and in Benjamin fenced cities” (2 Chr. xi. 5–10). Shishak has left a record of this expedition, sculptured on the wall of the great temple of El-Karnak. It is a list of the countries, cities, and tribes, conquered or ruled by him, or tributary to him. In this list Champollion recognised a name which he translated incorrectly, “the kingdom of Judah,” and was thus led to trace the names of certain cities of Palestine. The document has since been more carefully studied by Dr. Brugsch, and with less success by Dr. Blau. The Pharaohs of the Empire passed through northern Palestine to push their conquests to the Euphrates and Mesopotamia. Shishak, probably unable to attack the Assyrians, attempted the subjugation of Palestine and the tracts of Arabia which border Egypt. He seems to have succeeded in consolidating his power in

Arabia, and we accordingly find Zerah in Alliance with the people of Gerar, if we may infer this from their sharing his overthrow. Si’hor, accurately Shi’hor, once the Shihor or Shihor of Egypt.—When unqualified, a name of the Nile. It is held to signify “the black” or “turbid.” There are but three occurrences of Shihor in the Bible, and but one of Shihor of Egypt, or Shihor-Mizraim. It is spoken of as one of the limits of territory which was still unconquered when Joshua was old (Josh. xiii. 2, 3). With this passage must be compared that in which Shihor-Mizraim occurs. David is related to have “gathered all Israel together from Shihor of Egypt even unto the entering of Hamath” (I Chr. xiii. 5). There is no other evidence that the Israelites ever spread westward beyond Gaza. The stream may therefore be that of the Wádi-l’Aresh. That the stream intended by Shihor unqualified was a navigable river is evident from a passage in Isaiah, where it is said of Tyre, “And by great waters, the sowing of Shihor, the harvest of the river [is] here revenue (xxiii. 3). Here Shihor is either the same as, or compared with, Yeôr, generally thought to be the Nile, but in this work suggested to be the extension of the Red Sea. [RED SEA .] In Jeremiah the identity of Shihor with the Nile seems distinctly stated (ii. 18). In articles NILE and RIVER OF EGYPT it is maintained too strongly that Shihor, however qualified, is always the Nile. The later opinion of the writer is expressed here under SHIHOR OF EGYPT . The latter is, he thinks, unquestionably the Nile, the former two probably, but not certainly, the same. Sin.—A city of Egypt, mentioned only by Ezekiel (xxx. 15, 16). The name is Hebrew, or, at least, Shemitic, Gesenius supposes it to signify “clay.” It is identified in the Vulg. with Pelusium, Ðçëïýóéïí, “the clayey or muddy” town. The ancient Egyptian name is still to be sought for: it has been supposed that Pelusium preserves traces of it, but this is very improbable. Champollion identifies Pelusium with the Percmoun, Percmon, and Baremoun of the Copts, El-Farmà of the Arabs, which was in the time of the former a boundary-city. The site of Pelusium is as yet undetermined. It has been thought to be marked by mounds near Burg-et-Teeneh, now called El-Farmà and not EtTeeneh. This is disputed by Captain Spratt, who supposes that the mound of Aboo-Kheeyár indicates where it stood. This is further inland, and apparently on the west of the old Pelusiac branch, as was Pelusium. It is situate between Farmà and Tel-Defenneh. The antiquity of the town of Sin may perhaps be inferred from the mention of “the wilderness of Sin” in the journeys of the Israelites (Ex. xvi. 1; Num. xxxiii. 11). Pelusium is mentioned by Ezekiel, in one of the prophecies relating to the invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, as one of the cities which should then suffer calamities, with, probably, reference to their later history. The prophet speaks of Sin as “Sin the stronghold of Egypt” (ver. 15). This place it held from that time until the period of the Romans. Herodotus relates that Sennacherib advanced against Pelusium, and that near Pelusium Cambyses defeated Psamenitus. In like manner the decisive battle in which Ochus defeated the last native king, Nectanebos, NEKHT-NEBF, was fought near this city. So.—“So King of Egypt” is once mentioned in the Bible. Hoshea, the last king of Israel, evidently intending to become the vassal of Egypt, sent messengers to him and made no present, as had been the yearly custom, to the king of Assyria (2 Kings xvii. 4). So has been identified by different writers with the first and second kings of the Ethiopian XXVth dynasty, called by Manetho, Sabakôn (Shebek), and Sebichôs (Shebetek). The accession of Teharka, or Tirhakah, was perhaps B .C . 695. If we assign 24 years to the two predecessors, the commencement of the dynasty would be B .C . 719. But it is not certain that their reigns were continuous. If we adopt the earlier dates, So must correspond to Shebek, if the later, perhaps to Shebetek; but if it should be found that the reign of Tirhakah is dated too high, the former identification might still be held. From Egyptian sources we know nothing more of Shebek than that he conquered and put to death Bocchoris, the sole king of

the XXIVth dynasty, as we learn from Manetho’s list, and that he continued the monumental works of the Egyptian kings. The standard inscription of Sargon in his palace at Khursabád states, according to M. Oppert, that after the capture of Samaria, Hanon king of Gaza, and Sebech sultan of Egypt, met the king of Assyria in battle at Rapih (Raphia), and were defeated. Sebech disappeared, but Hanon was captured. Sye’ne.—Properly SEVENEH , a town of Egypt on the frontier of Cush or Ethiopia. The prophet Ezekiel speaks of the desolation of Egypt “from Migdol to Seveneh, even unto the border of Cush” (xxix. 10)*, and of its people being slain “from Migdol to Seveneh” (xxx. 6)**. Migdol was on the eastern border, and Seveneh is thus rightly identified with the town of Syene, which was always the last town of Egypt on the south, though at one time included in the nome Nubia. Its ancient Egyptian name is SUN. The modern town is slightly to the north of the old site. *The King James renders this phrase, “from the tower of Syene, even unto the border of Ethiopia.” The English “Migdol” is not mentioned by name in Ezekiel 29:10, but E. W. Bullinger equates “the tower” with “Migdol” and says it should read “from Migdol to Syene . . . ” See note on that verse. **The King James renders this phrase, “from the tower of Syene shall they fall in it by the sword.” The same comment applies to Ezekiel 30:6 as well. See Bullinger’s note on that verse. Tah’panhes, Tehaph’nehes, Tahap’anes.— A city of Egypt, of importance in the time of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The name is evidently early Egyptian, and closely resembles that of the Egyptian queen TAHPENES . The Coptic name of this place, Taphnas, is clearly derived from the LXX. form. Tahpanhes was evidently a town in Lower Egypt on or near the eastern border. When Johanan and the other captains went into Egypt “they came to Tahpanhes” (Jer. xliii. 7). The Jews in Jeremiah’s time remained here (Jeremiah xliv. 1). It was an important town, being twice mentioned by the latter prophet with Noph or Memphis (ii. 16, xlvi. 14). Here stood a house of Pharaoh-hophra before which Jeremiah hid great stones (xliii. 8–10). It is mentioned with “Ramesse and all the land of Gesen” in Jud. i. 9.* Herodotus calls this place Daphnae of Pelusium. In the Itinerary of Antoninus this town, called Dafno, is placed 16 Roman miles to the south-west of Pelusium. This position seems to agree with that of Tel-Defenneh, which Sir Garnder Wilkinson supposes to mark the site of Daphnae. Can the name be of Greek origin? No satisfactory Egyptian etymology has been suggested. Tah’penes.—A proper name of an Egyptian queen. She was the wife of the Pharaoh who received Hadad the Edomite, and who gave him her sister in marriage (1 K. xi. 18–20). In the LXX. the latter is called the elder sister of Thekemina, and in the addition to ch. xii. Shishak (Susakim) is said to have given Ano, the elder sister of Thekemenia his wife, to Jeroboam. It is obvious that this and the earlier statement are irreconcilable. There is therefore but one Tahpenes or Thekemina. No name that has any near resemblance to either Tahpenes or Thekemina has yet been found among those of this period. Zo’an.—An ancient city of lower Egypt, near the eastern border. Its Shemitic name indicates a place of departure from a country. The Egyptian name HA-AWAR, or PA-AWAR, Avaris, means “the abode” or “house” of “going out” or “departure.” Zoan, or Tanis, is situate in N. lat. 31º, E. Long. 31º 55', on the east bank of the canal which was formerly the Tanitic branch. Anciently a rich plain extended due east as far as Pelusium, about thirty miles distant, gradually narrowing toward the east, so that in a south-easterly direction from Tanis it was not more than half this breadth. Of old it was rich marsh-land, watered by four of the seven branches of the Nile, the Pathmitic, Mendesian, Tanitic, and Pelusiac, and swept by the cool breezes of the Mediterranean. Tanis, while Egypt was ruled by native kings, was the chief town of this territory, and an important post towards the

eastern frontier. It was rebuilt by Salatis the first of the shepherd kings, the motive of Salatis was not to overawe Egypt but to keep out the Assyrians. The position of Tanis explains the case. Like the other principal cities of this tract, Pelusium, Bubastis, and Heliopolis, it lay on the east bank of the river, towards Syria. But Tanis, though doubtless fortified partly with the object of repelling an invader, was too far inland to be the frontier fortress. Manetho explicitly states Avaris to have been older than the time of the Shepherds; but there are reasons for questioning his accuracy in this matter. The name is more likely to be of foreign than of Egyptian origin, for Zoan distinctly indicates a place of departure of a migratory people, whereas Avaris has the simple signification “abode of departure.” A remarkable passage in the Book of Numbers, not hitherto explained, “Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt” (xiii. 22), seems to determine the question. Hebron was already built in Abraham’s time, and the Shepherd-invasion may be dated about the same period. Whether some older village or city were succeeded by Avaris matters little: its history begins in the reign of Salatis. What Egyptian records tell us of this city may be briefly stated. Apepee, probably Apophis of the xvth dynasty, a Shepherd-king who reigned shortly before the xviiith dynasty, built a temple here to Set, the Egyptian Baal, and worshipped no other god. According to Manetho, the Shepherds, after 511 years of rule, were expelled from all Egypt and shut up in Avaris, whence they were allowed to depart by capitulation about B .C . 1500. Rameses II. embellished the great temple of Tanis, and was followed by his son Menptah. We believe that the Pharaoh of Joseph as well as the oppressors were Shepherds, the former ruling at Memphis and Zoan, the latter probably at Zoan only. Zoan is mentioned in connection with the Plagues in such a manner as to leave no doubt that it is the city spoken of in the narrative of Exodus as that where Pharaoh dwelt (Ps. lxxviii. 42, 43). After the fall of the empire, the first dynasty is the xxist, called by Manetho that of the Tanites. Its history is obscure. The xxiiird dynasty is called Tanite, and its last king is probably Sethos, the contemporary of Tirhakah, mentioned by Herodotus. At this time, Tanis once more appears in sacred history (Is. xxx. 4). As mentioned with the frontier-town Tahpanhes, Tanis is not necessarily the capital. But the same prophet perhaps more distinctly points to a Tanite line (xix. 13). The doom of Zion [Zoan?] is foretold by Ezekiel “I will set fire in Zoan” (xxx. 14), where it occurs among the cities to be taken by Nebuchadnezzar.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful