DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6359#0235
THE BONDAGE.
217
preting it to mean exactly the contrary of what it says; and
of course is not entitled to the least respect as historical
authority. We therefore reject as spurious the whole para-
graph from Manetho giving the story of the return of the
shepherds on the invitation of " the lepers."
As far as our investigations have enabled us to discover,
the eighteenth dynasty of Egypt began to reign about sixty
years after Joseph's death, and the first king was Thothmes,
Tethmosis or Amosis, or Ames or Amos, for in all these
various modes has it been written. The chronological coinci-
dence would, therefore, suggest that he was the king who
" knew not Joseph." By this expression we understand, not
that he was ignorant of the past history of Joseph, but that he
Was not so deeply impressed as the last dynasty had been
with a sense of the services Joseph had rendered to the state;
and therefore not equally disposed to acknowledge the claims
of the Israelites upon the Egyptian government. But why was
this 1 Because he was from the distant province of Thebes,
knew nothing personally of the Hebrews, and, with the usual
haughty arrogance of Egyptian monarchs, probably viewed
them with the contempt and suspicion that attached to
foreigners, and, as we have seen, especially to shepherds.
Sir Gardner Wilkinson has made a suggestion on this subject,
Well worthy of consideration. He thinks that the Jews, who
had come in under the pressure of a famine, had asked and
obtained a grant from the Egyptian authorities, on condition
°f the performance of certain services by them and their
descendants. This is rather corroborated by the fact that
some of them were agriculturists, while others were shep-
herds ; for we read that, beside their labor " in mortar and
hrick," they were also employed " in all manner of service in
\
217
preting it to mean exactly the contrary of what it says; and
of course is not entitled to the least respect as historical
authority. We therefore reject as spurious the whole para-
graph from Manetho giving the story of the return of the
shepherds on the invitation of " the lepers."
As far as our investigations have enabled us to discover,
the eighteenth dynasty of Egypt began to reign about sixty
years after Joseph's death, and the first king was Thothmes,
Tethmosis or Amosis, or Ames or Amos, for in all these
various modes has it been written. The chronological coinci-
dence would, therefore, suggest that he was the king who
" knew not Joseph." By this expression we understand, not
that he was ignorant of the past history of Joseph, but that he
Was not so deeply impressed as the last dynasty had been
with a sense of the services Joseph had rendered to the state;
and therefore not equally disposed to acknowledge the claims
of the Israelites upon the Egyptian government. But why was
this 1 Because he was from the distant province of Thebes,
knew nothing personally of the Hebrews, and, with the usual
haughty arrogance of Egyptian monarchs, probably viewed
them with the contempt and suspicion that attached to
foreigners, and, as we have seen, especially to shepherds.
Sir Gardner Wilkinson has made a suggestion on this subject,
Well worthy of consideration. He thinks that the Jews, who
had come in under the pressure of a famine, had asked and
obtained a grant from the Egyptian authorities, on condition
°f the performance of certain services by them and their
descendants. This is rather corroborated by the fact that
some of them were agriculturists, while others were shep-
herds ; for we read that, beside their labor " in mortar and
hrick," they were also employed " in all manner of service in
\