DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6359#0247
THE BONDAGE.
229
nally redeemed from that oppression by their God. Con-
sequently it is thought this history of a part of that oppression
would not have been permitted to remain.
To this objection there are. as it seems to us, two satisfac-
tory answers. Conceding that monuments which could recall
the mortifying history of the virtual triumph of Israel in the
exode were destroyed, the destruction was of public monu-
ments. No sculptured story or painting of the acts of any
Egyptian king would be left to perpetuate the record of
shame. The mutilations that have been found thus far are
on public national memorials. The cartouch of a monarch,
for instance, is obliterated, when the remembrance of him
would reflect no credit on Egypt: but private tombs were not
mutilated in this mode. Roschere's tomb was no public
memorial; its representation of Jews making brick was doubt-
less founded on fact, but was introduced incidentally merely
to testify to his own importance as overseer of public works.
Strictly private, it was not disturbed.
But another and conclusive answer to our minds is this.
It is conceded that these are Jews working, that they are
greatly degraded, and are making brick. Now the represen-
tation must have been founded on facts. We ask, then, at
what period except during the oppressive tyranny of the
bondage, does our historical knowledge of the connection
between the Jews and Egyptians afford the slightest intima-
tion or probability that they were likely to be thus degraded
and employed? Certainly not before the king "who knew
not Joseph;" for the Jews then were in favor with the
ruling powers :—certainly not afterward, until the lapse of a
Period long posterior to this, when Shishak conquered Reho-
Wrn. There was then, if these be representations of Jews at
229
nally redeemed from that oppression by their God. Con-
sequently it is thought this history of a part of that oppression
would not have been permitted to remain.
To this objection there are. as it seems to us, two satisfac-
tory answers. Conceding that monuments which could recall
the mortifying history of the virtual triumph of Israel in the
exode were destroyed, the destruction was of public monu-
ments. No sculptured story or painting of the acts of any
Egyptian king would be left to perpetuate the record of
shame. The mutilations that have been found thus far are
on public national memorials. The cartouch of a monarch,
for instance, is obliterated, when the remembrance of him
would reflect no credit on Egypt: but private tombs were not
mutilated in this mode. Roschere's tomb was no public
memorial; its representation of Jews making brick was doubt-
less founded on fact, but was introduced incidentally merely
to testify to his own importance as overseer of public works.
Strictly private, it was not disturbed.
But another and conclusive answer to our minds is this.
It is conceded that these are Jews working, that they are
greatly degraded, and are making brick. Now the represen-
tation must have been founded on facts. We ask, then, at
what period except during the oppressive tyranny of the
bondage, does our historical knowledge of the connection
between the Jews and Egyptians afford the slightest intima-
tion or probability that they were likely to be thus degraded
and employed? Certainly not before the king "who knew
not Joseph;" for the Jews then were in favor with the
ruling powers :—certainly not afterward, until the lapse of a
Period long posterior to this, when Shishak conquered Reho-
Wrn. There was then, if these be representations of Jews at