Arabian desert, at Etham, from which the tract of country lying next to Egypt receives the name, desert of Etham. But instead of advancing directly into the desert, they turned down again farther into Egypt to the Arabian Gulf. Afterwards, instead of going round the sea, they proceeded through it unto the desert of Etham. Supposing it now certain, that the Israelites at the end of the second day's march had reached the northern point of the Arabian Gulf, we are then, according to the common hypothesis, that the Raamses from which the Israelites began their march lay in the region of Heliopolis, brought into no small difficulty. The distance is then far too great. It amounts from the Nile to the Red Sea to twenty-six hours, if we suppose with Sicard and von Raumer* that they passed through the Valley of Wandering, and to as much, at least, if, with Niebuhr they are allowed to have taken the common caravan route at the present day which leads from Cairo by Suez to Sinai. Niebuhrt says: "We spent twentyeight hours and forty minutes, deducting the time of resting, on our way from Birket el Haj (four hours from Cairo).” Evidently much too great a distance for so heavily laden a train as was that of the Israelites. But if we place Raamses on the site of the present Abu Keisheid, this difficulty entirely vanishes. The distance from this place to the Red Sea is about thirteen French leagues. This distance appears not too great, but just sufficient, if it is considered that the Israelites departed "in haste." We remark further, that the opinion of the French scholars who look for Etham on the site of the present Bir Su * See von Raumer, S. 11, and Ritter, S. 859. + Beschreibung von Arabien, S. 408. See Le Père in the Description, t. 1. p. 84, who also on pages 74 seq. gives a description of the way from Abu Keisheid to Heroöpolis. weis has much probability.* This place is described by Le Pèret in the following manner : "The traveller comes finally out of the valley and reaches the plain of Suez. The city as well as the sea is in sight, and a gentle declivity leads down to Bir Suweis or the wells of Suez; these wells are only an hour from Suez." Etham must have been situated somewhere in this region, on account of the designation, "which is at the edge of the desert." What Du Bois A y mé says applies especially to Bir Suweis: "Sweet water is very scarce in this whole region, and the wells must determine the stations of the caravans." "Between Migdol and the Sea." Finally also, Ex. 14: 2 deserves a discussion in our geographical section: "Speak to the children of Israel that they turn back and encamp before Pi-hahiroth between Migdol and the sea over against Baal-zephon, before it shall ye encamp by the sea. Compare with Num. 33: 7: "And they removed from Etham and returned back to Pi-hahiroth which is before Baal-zephon, and they pitched before Migdol." An insuperable difficulty appears to lie here in the phrases "between Migdol and the sea," and "they pitched before Migdol." Migdol is, doubtless, as even the Seventy perceived, identical with Magdolum. But this place lies, according to the declaration of the Itinerarium Antonini, only twelve Roman miles southward from Pelusium. The general correctness of this declaration is confirmed by Ex. 29: 10. 30: 6, where in the words from " Migdol to Syene," these places are opposed to each other; Syene as being the most southern border of Egypt, and Migdol the most northern, also by the passage in Herodotus where Magdolum as the acknowledged border town of Egypt towards Palestine is interchan * See for example Du Bois-Aymé in a treatise: On the residence of the Hebrews in Egypt, Descr. t. 8. p. 113. † p. 61. ged with Megiddo.* If Migdol was so far distant from the place where the Israelites were encamped-nearly the whole breadth of the Isthmus of Suez lies between-how can it be said, that the Israelites "encamped between Migdol and the sea,” and “ pitched before Migdol ?" The difficulty here is removed by the remark, that "between Migdol and the sea," and "before Migdol," do not serve for the geographical designation of the place where the Israelites were encamped, but rather call attention to the peril to which they exposed themselves by their foolish march. That Migdol was a fortress, the name itself shows, since it signifies tower or fortress. Probably the border garrison against Syria, which in later times was removed to the neighboring Daphne, was stationed here. Herodotus says: "Under king Psamaticus guards were stationed at Elephantine against the Ethiopians, as in the Pelusiac Daphne against the Arabs and Syrians, and in Marea in like manner against Lybia. And even to this hour Persian guards are stationed at the very same places where they were under Psamaticus; for Persians are on guard at Elephantine, and also in Daphne."+ Upon the phrase "between Migdol and the sea" is founded the saying of Pharaoh, "The desert has shut them in." They ought to have sought to free themselves as soon as possible from this unfortunate dilemma-to go around the north end of the Arabian Gulf before the garrison marching out from Migdol could block up their way-and they had already nearly escaped. Then they thrust themselves, through an inexplicable misunderstanding, again into the midst of danger. Thus also here, that which appears at first view to be opposed to the author's knowledge of Egypt, is a proof of it, when more particularly examined. * 2. 159 Καὶ Σύροισι πεζῇ ὁ Νεκὼς συμβαλὼν ἐν Μαγδόλῳ ἐνίκησε. B. 2. chap. 30. HISTORY OF JOSEPH, CONTINUED. Kings and Priests, the Possessors of the Land in Egypt. We proceed now, after finishing our inquiry concerning the references of the Pentateuch to the geographical features of Egypt, in the explanation of the Egyptian allusions in this portion of sacred history, in the order of the chapters. We first turn our attention to Gen. 47: 13-26. Joseph, according to this account, purchased for Pharaoh of his subjects the right of possession to their land, so that the whole country henceforth belonged to Pharaoh. "Only the land of the Priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them; wherefore they sold not their lands," verse 22. The land was divided out to its former possessors by lease; they were compelled to pay a fifth of its yearly produce. "And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt to this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part, except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh's," verse 26. Among the accounts of profane writers which extend over this same ground, those of Herodotus and Diodorus are of particular importance. The first of these authors says: "The same 'king (Sesostris) had also divided the whole land among the Egyptians, they said, and had given to each one at square portion of equal extent, and in this way he obtained his income, for he collected from each individual a yearly rent. And when the flood took away something from the portion of one, he must come to the king and make a representation of the calamity. The king then sent some of his servants to examine it and measure how much less the land had become, that the tenant might pay from what remained in proportion to the whole amount of the imposed rent."* * B. 2. c. 109. According to Diodorus,* all the land in Egypt belonged either to the priests or the kings, or the military caste. An important point of agreement between the Biblical account and profane writers comes here directly into view. There is an entire accordance with regard to the prominent thing, namely, that the cultivators were not the possessors of the soil. Strabot also says that those who were employed in agriculture and trade held their land subject to rent. In the sculptures, as Wilkinson shows, only kings, priests and the military order are represented as land-owners. Contracts of sale lately discovered, according to which towns seem to have had their separate territories,|| belong to a very late condition of things, (a certain, although a limited right of possession will always arise in process of time from the condition of tenants,) and at most warrant only the assertion that the rule was not without exceptions. "We can affirm with certainty," says Heeren,¶ " that if not all, yet surely the greatest and best part of the land belonged to the king, the temples, the priests and the military order. It is further certain that these lands were cultivated by tenants, whose precise condition, whether they were fee-farmers or temporary occupants of the land, we do not know. Their condition may have been similar to that of the present Fellahs, who by no means have full ownership of land.** But it cannot be * 1. 73. + 17, p. 787. + I. p. 263. That Herodotus || Böckh Erklärung einer Aeg. Urkunde, S. 27. § Anything further is not desired by Böckh. does not recognize any special cast of cultivators, he explains by the fact that the peasants were not land owners, and consequently could not constitute a special caste. He supposes that the kings, priests and soldiers all possessed real estate in the country, and a part of that in the towns, but that the inhabitants of towns in their very limited provinces also had possessions in land. T S. 142. ** We will here quote what Girard says in the Description, t. 17, p. |