In another letter Abdi-ṭâba explains how all the lands had concluded a bond of hostility against him, and the districts of Gezer, Askelon, and Lachish had supplied these people with food. After this comes the usual request for troops, and the indication that, if troops be sent “this year,” the situation would be saved—next year there would be neither countries nor governors for the king (in Palestine). “Behold, this land of the city of Jerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave it to me—the power of the mighty king gave it to me, (even) to me.” “See,” he continues, “this deed is the deed of Milki-îli, and the deed of the sons of Lab'aya, who have given the land of the king to the Ḫabiri.” He then goes on to speak of the Kaši, who seem to have supported the confederates with food, oil, and clothes. Next follows what Paura, the king's commissioner, had told him about the disaffection of Adaya. Caravans had been robbed in the field of the city of Yaluna (Ajalon), but [pg 298] Abdi-ṭâba could not prevent this: “(I mention this) in order to inform thee.” “Behold, the king has placed his name in the land of Jerusalem for ever, and the forsaking of the lands of Jerusalem is not possible.” After this comes the usual note to the scribe in Egypt, followed by a postscript referring to the people of Kâsi, disclaiming some evil deed which had been done to them. “Do not kill a worthy servant (on that account”).
Yet another letter refers to Milki-îli and Lab'aya: “Behold, has not Milki-îli fallen away from the sons of Lab'aya and from the sons of Arzawa to ask the land of the king for them?74 A governor, who has done this deed, why has the king not called him to account for this?” The narrative breaks off where Abdi-ṭâba begins to relate something further concerning Milki-îli and another named Tagi. When the text again becomes legible, Abdi-ṭâba is again referring to the fact that there is no garrison of the king in some place whose name is lost. “Therefore—as the king lives—Puuru (= Pauru) has entered it—he has departed from my presence, (and) is in the city of Gaza. So let the king indicate to him (the necessity) of a garrison to protect the country. All the land of the king has rebelled. Send Ya'enḫamu (Yanḫamu), and let him become acquainted with (lit. let him know) the country of the king (i.e. the true state of affairs”). Here follows a note to the scribe in Egypt similar to that translated above.
One of the most interesting and instructive of the letters of Abdi-ṭâba is that which Petrie regards as the latest of the series; and on account of its importance, it is given in full here—
“(To) the king, my lord, (s)ay also thus: ‘It is [pg 299] (Abdi)-ṭâba thy servant. At the feet of the (ki)ng my lord twice seven times and twice seven times I fall down. (Behold, the deed) which Milki-îli and Šu-ardatum have done to the land of the king my lord has been successful (?). The men of the city of Gazri (Gezer), the men of the city of Gimti (Gath), and the men of the city of Kîlti (Keilah) have been captured. The land of the city of Rubute has revolted. The land of the king (belongs to) the Ḫabiri. And now, moreover, a city of the land of Jerusalem, the city Beth-Ninip (“House” or “Temple of Ninip”)—(this is) its name—has revolted to the people of Kîlti. Let the king hearken to Abdi-ṭâba thy servant, and let him send hired soldiers, and let me bring back the land of the king to the king. And if there be no hired soldiers, the land of the king will go over to the men, the Ḫabiri. This deed (is the deed of) Šu-ardatum (and) Milki-îli ... city ... and let the king care for his land.’ ”
Whether the fall of Jerusalem followed or not is doubtful; nor is it certain that the Egyptians were ultimately driven out. Other letters seem to show how the influence of those whom Abdi-ṭâba calls the Ḫabiri, and others the Ḫabati—the “confederates” and the “plunderers”—spread still farther southward. Naturally more information is required to enable it to be known in what manner the Egyptians tried to retrieve their position, and how it was that Amenophis IV. delayed so long the sending of troops. All the governors who were in the least degree faithful to Egypt united in repeatedly warning him as to what was taking place, and urging him to send troops. Had the rebellion or invasion—whichever it was—been nipped in the bud, Palestine would have remained a faithful Egyptian province. All the king did, however, was to send his commissioner, and, occasionally, exhorting and even threatening letters, which had in all probability little or no effect, except [pg 300] to excite a little mild amusement on account of their erratic spelling. A very noteworthy communication of this class is the following—
The King Of Egypt Rebukes The Prince Of The Amorites.
“(To) the Amorite say then thus, (‘It is the king’). The king thy lord (hath hear)d thus: ‘The Gebalite whose brother drove him from the gate (hath spoke)n to thee thus: “Take me and cause me to enter into my city, (and a reward) then let me give thee—yea, however much, (though) it be not with me.” Thus did he speak to thee.’
“Writest thou (no)t to the king thy lord (th)us: ‘I am thy servant like all the former governors who (were each) in the midst of his city’? But thou doest wrong to receive a governor whose brother hath driven him from his gate out of his city.
“And (whilst) dwelling in Sidon, thou deliveredst him to the governors as was thy will. Knewest thou not the hatred of the people?
“If thou be in truth a servant of the king, why hast thou not made possible his transmission to the presence of the king thy lord, (saying) thus: ‘This governor sent to me thus: “Take me to thee, and cause me to enter into my city” ’?
“And if thou hast done according to right, then all the matters are not true concerning which thou wrotest: ‘They are trustworthy,’ for the king thought thus: ‘All that thou hast said is not correct.’
“And behold, the king hath heard thus: Thou art in agreement with the man of Kidša (Kadesh), food and drink together have ye supplied. And be it true, why doest thou thus? why art thou in agreement with a man with whom the king is on bad terms? And if thou hast done according to right, and hast regard to thy opinion, then his opinion [pg 301] existeth not. Thou hast no care for the things which thou hast done from the first. What hath been done to thee among them (the disaffected ones), that thou art not with the king thy lord?
“Behold, those who attract(?) thee to themselves seek to throw thee into the fire; and it is kindled, and thou findest everything very satisfactory.
“And if thou do homage to the king thy lord, what is there which the king would not do for thee? If on account of anything thou wish to work evil, and if thou set evil, and words of hate, in thine heart, then by the king's ax shalt thou die, together with all thy family.
“So do homage to the king thy lord, and thou shalt live. And thou knowest, even thou, that the king desireth not to attack the land of Kinaḫḫi (Canaan), the whole of it.
“And as thou hast sent thus: ‘Let the king leave me this year, and let me come in the second year before the king, my lord—my son is not here to ...;’ behold, then, the king thy lord will grant thee this year, according as thou hast said. Come thou (or if thy son, send), and thou shalt see the king at the sight of whom all the lands live. And say not thus: ‘Let him leave me this year in addition.’ If it be not possible to go into the presence of the king thy lord, direct thy son to the king thy lord instead. He (need) not (stay with thee), let him come.
“And, behold, the king thy lord hath heard that thou hast written to the king thus: ‘Let the king my lord allow Ḫanni, the king's messenger, to come a second time and let me cause the enemies of the king to be taken back by his hand.’ Behold, he hath come to thee, as thou hast said, and leave not one of them behind. Behold, the king thy lord causeth to be brought to thee the names of the enemies of the king in this letter at the hands of Ḫanni, the king's messenger, so cause them to be brought to the [pg 302] king thy lord, and do not leave one of them (behind). And brazen bonds shall be placed on their feet. Behold, the men whom thou shalt cause to be sent to the king thy lord (are):
“ ‘And mayest thou know: well is the king, like the Sun in Heaven; his soldiers and chariots are many. From the upper country as far as the lower country, (from) sunrise as far as sunset (i.e. from the extreme east to the extreme west), great is the prosperity.’ ”
To all appearance Amenophis IV. trusted too much to his own prestige, and that of the country over which he ruled. He was “the son of the Sun,” “like unto the Sun in Heaven,” “the king at the sight of whom all the lands live,” and naturally took it for granted that he was everywhere looked upon with the same veneration as in his own country.
As may easily be imagined, the expulsion of the Egyptians from Palestine left the country in a very disturbed state, and marauding bands, having no longer anything to do in the way of wresting territory from the Egyptians, must have given considerable trouble to the native princes and governors, now once more independent in their own territories.
The loss of Palestine, on the other hand, probably brought with it a certain amount of loss of prestige [pg 303] to Egypt, which must have endured for some time. In any case, the Egyptian kings who succeeded Amenophis IV. seem to have made no attempt to regain the lost provinces.
Ankh-kheperu-Ra, the king who succeeded the ruler just named, lived for a while at Tel-el-Amarna, during which time, in all probability, the tomb of his predecessor's six daughters was finished. Several rings of this king exist, on two of which he calls himself “beloved of Nefer-kheperu-Ra” (or, in accordance with the indications of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets: Nafar-khoperu-Ria) and “beloved of Ua-en-Ra,” names of Amenophis IV. During his reign the worship of the sun's disc (Aten, or, if the derivation from the Semitic Adon, “lord,” be correct, Aton) began to give way to that of the national gods of Egypt. He reigned thirteen years (1365-1353 b.c.), and was succeeded by Ra-kheperu-neb (1353-1344). The paintings in the tomb of Hui at Thebes show that tribute was still received from the Syrians (Rutennu), as well as from the people of Kush in the Soudan. Evidently the road was being paved for the conquest of the lost provinces of Syria.
After this came a ruler who seems to have held the throne only on account of his wife being of royal blood. According to Petrie, he was “divine father Ay,” and his wife's name was Ty. He reigned thirteen years (1344-1332 b.c.). During his reign a complete reversion to the old worship took place.
Ay's successor, Ra-ser-kheperu (Hor-em-heb), 1332-1328 b.c., was apparently also a commoner, and is identified (Petrie) with the Hor-em-heb who was general in an earlier reign. He is represented being adored by negroes and Asiatics.
One or two other obscure names occur, and then begins the reign of king Rameses I., who came to the throne about 1300 b.c. This reign was short enough, but there is hardly any doubt that in it the [pg 304] prosperity of Egypt was renewed. From the treaty of the Khita with Rameses II., the grandson of Rameses I., we learn that the latter had a war with the Khita, and from the fact that he founded a storehouse for the temple of his divine father Hor-khem, and filled it with captive men-servants and maid-servants, we may conclude that he was fairly successful in his warlike expeditions.
With his son, Seti (Sethos) I., or Meneptah (“beloved of Ptah”), we attain firmer ground. In the very first year of his reign he warred in the east, among the Shasu Bedouin, “from the fortress of Khetam (Heb. Etham) in the land of Zalu, as far as Kan'ana (Canaan).” Kadesh, at that time a city of the Kheta (it had apparently fallen into the hands of the Hittites during the reign of Amenophis IV.), was conquered by him. Not only the Hittites, however, but also Naharain (Naharaim), the country of which Dušratta of old had been king, upper and lower Rutennu (Canaan and North Syria), Sinjar, the island of Cyprus, and Cappadocia, felt the force of his arms. His son, Rameses II., was associated with him on the throne, and afterwards succeeded him. This took place about 1300 b.c. It is to this ruler that the glory of the name of Rameses is principally due, and his grandfather, the first who bore it, shines mainly with a reflected light.
It is impossible here to do more than touch upon such of the details of his career as are essential in the present work. In all probability he is best known on account of his expedition into Syria, and the conquest of the Hittites, who, as recorded in the celebrated heroic poem of Pentaur, were allied with a number of other tribes, including the people of Naharaim, Aleppo, Gauzanitis, the Girgashites (?), Carchemish, etc. The result was success for the Egyptian arms, and the Hittites, on the whole, submitted, though some of the towns acknowledging [pg 305] Hittite rule, notably Tunep, refused to accept Egyptian suzerainty, necessitating another expedition, the result of which was, that the Egyptians found no more opposition to their overlordship. In his eighth and succeeding years he fought against the Canaanites, and in his descriptions of his operations there, many familiar names are to be found—names of great interest to all students of ancient Oriental history. It was in his eighth year, according to the texts in the Ramesseum, that he conquered Shalam (Salamis W. of Capernaum, according to Prof. Flinders Petrie), Marom (Merom), the spring of Anamimi (identified with Anamim), Dapur (identified with Tabor by Brugsch), and many other places.
Rameses II. is generally regarded as the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and one of the tasks placed upon the oppressed Israelites was the building of his store-cities, Pithom (Pi-tum, discovered by M. Naville when excavating for the Egypt Exploration Fund) and Raamses, the Pi-Ramessu of the inscriptions, concerning which there is a very interesting letter by an Egyptian named Panbesa, who visited it. As Brugsch says: “We may suppose that many a Hebrew, perhaps Moses himself, jostled the Egyptian scribe in his wandering through the gaily-dressed streets of the temple-city.”
The successor of Rameses, Meneptah II., is hardly the son which one would expect to follow such a father. According to Brugsch, he does not rank with those Pharaohs who transmitted their remembrance to posterity by grand buildings and the construction of new temples. And the monolith found by Petrie in 1896 seems to imply that his lists of conquests were not always so trustworthy as could be wished. Nevertheless, the reign of Meneptah is one of the greatest importance, for it was he, to all appearance, who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, as seems also to be proved by the same document. As this is a [pg 306] text of the very first importance, a translation of the concluding lines is given here—
“Kheta (the land of the Hittites) is in peace, captive is Canaan and full of misery, Askelon is carried away, Gezer is taken, Yennuamma is non-existent, Israel is lost, his seed is not,75 Syria is like the widows of Egypt. The totality of all the lands is at peace, for whoever rebelled was chastised by king Meneptah.”
Now the statement concerning Israel has given rise to a considerable amount of discussion. Naville regards the reference to the condition in which the Israelites were as indicating that they had left Egypt, and were wandering, “lost” in the desert. There is also some probability that the expression, “his seed is not,” may be a reference to the decree of the king, who commanded the destruction of the male children of the Hebrews, which command, he may have imagined, had been finally carried out. The question also naturally arises, whether the last phrase, “whoever rebelled was chastised by king Meneptah,” may not have a reference to the Israelites, who, from their own showing, were sufficiently peremptory in their demands to be allowed to proceed into the wilderness to sacrifice to their god, to bring down upon themselves any amount of resentment.
Exceedingly noteworthy, and in many respects startling, however, are the researches and statements of Dr. Edouard Mahler. Following Spiegelberg as to the meaning of the phrase containing the name of the Israelites, “Jenoam has been brought to naught; Israel, the horde, destroyed his crops”—a statement which hardly seems worthy of the honour of being inscribed on the memorial stele of a king of Egypt—is the rendering he suggests. The translation of the word feket (which is rendered by other Egyptologists as “annihilated, lost,” or in some similar way) by [pg 307] “horde,” allows the learned chronologist to suggest, that the ideographs accompanying the word Israelites indicate that they had already entered the Holy Land, and were trying to obtain a foothold there.
Having made these statements, he proceeds to examine the whole question. He asserts the correctness of the view, that Amosis, the founder of the eighteenth dynasty, was the prince who knew not Joseph. The first king of this new dynasty, he calculates, came to the throne two years after Joseph's death. With regard to the reign of Rameses II., he refers to the festival of the Sothis period which was celebrated in the thirtieth year of his reign. Starting from this period,76 which, according to Oppolzer, was renewed in the year 1318 b.c., he calculates that the first year of Rameses II. was 1347 b.c., and that the Exodus took place in his thirteenth year, i.e. 1335 b.c.
According to the Pirke di Rabbi Elieser, Dr. Mahler says, the departure of the Israelites is said to have taken place on a Thursday. “This view is also held in the Talmud (cf. Sabbath 87B), and the Shulchan-Aroch also maintains that the 15th Nisan, the day of the Exodus, was a Thursday. This all agrees with the year b.c. 1335, for in that year the 15th Nisan fell on a Thursday, and indeed on Thursday the 27th of March (Julian calendar).”
If we accept the theory that Rameses II. was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and that the Exodus took place in 1335 b.c., then Moses, who was eighty years old at the time of the Exodus, must have been born in the year 1415 b.c., i.e. the fifteenth year of Amenophis III. Now the chief wife of this ruler was queen Teie (see p. 275), a woman who was certainly [pg 308] of foreign, probably Asiatic, race. In all probability, therefore, Teie, being an alien and of a different religion from the Egyptians, was not by any means in favour with the Egyptian priesthood, however much the Pharaoh may have delighted in her. The daughter of such a woman, as will easily be understood, would find little or no opposition to the adoption by her of a child of one of the Hebrews, an Asiatic like her mother. This, of course, would explain excellently how it was that Moses came to be adopted and educated by an Egyptian princess at her father's court, and that he had no real sympathy with the people among whom he lived, though it raises somewhat of a difficulty, for it is hard to understand how the Egyptian king, sympathizing, as we may expect him to have done, with Asiatics, should have ordered the destruction of their children. Nevertheless, circumstances may easily have arisen to cause such a decree to be issued. Another difficulty is, to explain who the people hostile to Moses were, who in the thirteenth year of Rameses II. died (Exod. iv. 19). This has generally been understood to be the king and one or more of his advisers, though this objection, like the other, really presents no difficulty worthy of the name, as there was no indication that the king was included.
Of course there is no statement to the effect that Pharaoh was killed with his army by the returning flood after the Israelites crossed the Red Sea (in Ps. cxxxvi. 15 he must be regarded as having been overwhelmed therein in the persons of his warriors, who suffered the fate which ought to have stricken also the king), so that little or no difficulty exists in this portion of the narrative.77 On the other hand, a difficulty is got rid of if we suppose that the Exodus [pg 309] took place in the time of Rameses II. Dr. Mahler points out, that Meneptah was succeeded by his son and heir, User-kheperu-Ra', who did not die, but reigned thirty-three years. The eldest sons of Rameses II., on the other hand, all died during their father's lifetime, and it was the fourteenth of his numerous progeny who ultimately came to the throne.
Dr. Mahler clinches the matter by making the plague of darkness to have been a solar eclipse.
Whatever may be the defects of Dr. Mahler's seductive theory, it must be admitted that it presents fewer difficulties than any other that has yet been put forward, and on that account deserves special attention.