The History of the Ancient Civilizations. Duncker Max

and the Philistines (p. 164). But if Egypt had to take measures to keep off the shepherds and the Syrians, they would hardly suffer doubtful subjects of the same nation within their own borders; in the peace just mentioned it was expressly stipulated that neither party should receive the subjects coming to him from the other side (p. 153). Under such circumstances it was necessary to take measures that the Hebrews should "not join with the enemies," as the second text says.[621] The attempt had to be made to settle and assimilate them, and make them Egyptians. The fortifications from Pelusium to Heliopolis included just the region allotted to the Hebrews. These works required hands to build them. There was also the project of the canal from the Nile to the Arabian Gulf. As the fortification surrounded Goshen, so the canal ran athwart it, from Bubastis to the Lake of Crocodiles. If this canal, as well as the fortifications, required a great number of hands—and naturally those who were nearest would be first employed—the water brought by the canal made it possible to change the pastures along the canal into arable land, and to build cities upon it. From all this it is not improbable that the oppression of which the Hebrews speak commenced under the reign of Sethos I. continued under Ramses II, and was increased by the building of those two cities.

The tradition of the Hebrews maintains that the Hebrew nation arose in Egypt; in that country the family became a nation. The Egyptians could endure a tribe of shepherds on their borders, but not a powerful nation. With seventy souls, according to the first text, Jacob came into Egypt, and at the end of their sojourn the Hebrews, according to the same authority, had increased to 600,000 men, besides women and children.[622] Supposing the seventy to be a sacred number, and reckoning into the total "a number of strangers," who according to the revision joined the Hebrews, it is still quite impossible, even if the tribe which, as we assume, exchanged the pastures of the south of Canaan for those on the Nile about the middle of the sixteenth century numbered its thousands at the time of the change, that they should have increased to 600,000 full-grown men, i.e. to more than two millions of souls, within the given period of something less than the 250 years, to which the length of their settlement on the Nile will be shown to be limited. Even if we assume that the strangers made up a third of the whole total, this is impossible. At a much later time the number of the fighting men among the Hebrews can scarcely be reckoned higher than from two to three hundred thousand. Even if we regard the total as including the whole population, and not confined to the fighting men, it still appears very high. Granting, too, that an enumeration was not in itself impossible (the Hebrews had long had before them the pattern of the enumerations in Egypt), yet a closer examination shows, that the total is founded upon an average of 50,000 souls for each of the twelve tribes. This total therefore must be given up as a mere attempt to glorify the ancient times.[623] The events which follow show that the Israelites did really increase from a tribe to a nation under the protection of Egypt, and could put in the field from fifty to sixty thousand warriors—a growth and increase which in their old pastures, the proximity of the far more powerful Edomites, Hittites, Midianites, and Amalekites, could hardly have allowed sufficient space.

The twelve tribes, into which the nation of the Hebrews was divided, were carried back to the sons of Jacob, who were thought to be their ancestors. This fact has obviously influenced the number and position of these sons in the tradition. The tribes which claimed to be the oldest must have sprung from the oldest sons of Jacob; those who boasted of the purest descent must have for their progenitors sons born in lawful marriage; those whose blood was less pure were derived from sons born to Jacob by the handmaids of his wives. We found above (p. 409) that Leah, sprung from the true blood of the fathers, while yet in Haran, had borne Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulon. The oldest families of the Hebrews were named after Reuben. These, "the sons of Reuben," were "brave men who carried the sword and the shield, and drew the bow, and were skilful in war;"[624] but even in later times they still pursued the old pastoral mode of life in the mountain glades on the east of Jordan, and hence had no important influence on the development of the nation. This remarkable insignificance of the oldest tribe is accounted for in the revision by a sin of the ancestor, who lay with Bilhah, his father's handmaid.[625] According to the same prophetic authority, Simeon and Levi also had done an unclean deed, and Judah had once been equally guilty.[626] It is for his account of Judah only that we must make this narrator entirely responsible. For the deeds of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, he has merely developed hints contained in the "Blessings of Jacob," a poem of the time of the Judges, which he found existing in the Ephraimitic text.[627] That poem says expressly that Reuben, though the firstborn, was not to have the pre-eminence; and Simeon and Levi, "because in their anger they slew a man, and in their passion lamed a bull," were to be scattered in Israel, i.e. were to have no district specially their own. In contrast to the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, this poem celebrated the tribe of Joseph—under which name the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were included—whose praise has been already given, and it brings into prominence the tribe of Judah. The strength of the nation rested on the tribes of Ephraim and Judah; they had done the best service at the conquest of Canaan, and were the foremost in defending the land. The tribe of Ephraim was first in battle, and it retained this superiority for centuries. The tribe was not sprung from the oldest, but from the most beloved son of Jacob, the late-born son of Rachel. Ephraim was the younger of the two sons born to Joseph by the Egyptian woman, but Jacob had placed his right hand on the head of the younger son, and said, "By thee shall Israel bless."[628] Such is the account of the Ephraimitic text. In the Judæan Jacob is made to say, "Ephraim and Manasseh shall be as my two firstborn."[629] The fathers of the tribes of Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher were considered to have been born to Jacob by his handmaids.

      FOOTNOTES:

      [604] Nöldeke, "Untersuchungen," s. 32.

      [605] De Wette-Schrader, "Einleitung," s. 273 ff.

      [606] Ebers, "Durch Gosen," s. 430; "Ægypt. und die Bücher Moses," s. 330, 323 ff.

[607] Ebers, "Ægypt. und die Bücher Moses," s. 321, 322.

[608] Above p. 196; Ebers, loc. cit. s. 347.

[609] Lepsius, "Chronol." s. 382; Ebers, "Ægypten und die Bücher Moses," s. 296; Lauth, "Moses," s. 77.

[610] Exod. xii. 40.

[611] Ebers, "Durch Gosen," s. 505 ff.

[612] Generally only two or three. The longest genealogy is that of Joshua: Ephraim, Beriah, Rephah, Telah, Tahan, Laadan, Ammihud, Elishama, Nun (1 Chron. vii. 20 ff; cf. Numb. xxvi. 35; vii. 48; x. 22), from which, if it were to be regarded as certain (Ewald, "Gesch. Israel's," 1, 490, thinks that it is certain), it would follow that the Hebrews