The Arrogance of the Pharaohs. * The insolent pride with which Pharaoh received the message communicated by Moses, as: "Who is Jehovah, that I should hear his voice, to let Israel go?" "I know not Jehovah and will not let Israel go," in chap. 5: 2; the obstinacy which he afterwards exhibits, when the divine punishments fall upon him, one after another, in deciding to go to destruction with his land and people, rather than yield, are proved on the monuments in various ways, to be in accordance with the genuine spirit of a Pharaoh. A comparison of the representation of the victory of Remeses Meiamun, in Thebes, explained by Champollion, is of special interest in this connection. The Pharaoh, it is there said, at whose feet they lay down these trophies of victory, (the severed right hand and other members of the body,) sits quietly in his chariot, while his horses are held by his officers, and directs a haughty speech to his warriors: "Give yourselves to mirth; let it rise to heaven. Strangers are dashed to the ground by my power. Terror of my name has gone forth; their hearts are full of it; I appear before them as a lion; I have pursued them as a hawk; I have annihilated their wicked souls. I have passed over their rivers; I have set on fire their castles; I am to Egypt what the god Mandoo has been; I have vanquished the barbarians; Amun Re, my father, subdued the whole world under my feet, and I am king on the throne forever." It is said that we mistake the whole character of Champollion's work, if we assert the literal truth of this translation; but the spirit which the speech breathes may always be recognized from it. The ancient Egyptian kings named themselves in their pride, Kings of the whole world,† and what is yet more, they in this arrogance claim divine honors for themselves. This + Champollion, p. 231. * In den Briefen aus Aeg. p. 227. can be proved by a multitude of arguments, of which we will here give only a few. The Menephtheum at Thebes has a double character,* that of a temple and palace. It is in all its plan destined for the dwelling of a man, and yet it reminds one by its decorations, of the consecrated residence of a god. Even the name Pharaoh is a monument of this idea. It cannot be doubted that it designates the king, as the incarnation of the sun, which the Egyptians named Phre. The proof of this Rosellinit furnishes, relying specially upon the fact that among the royal emblems, a disk, representing the sun, takes the first place. This is, accordingly, the first title which all the kings of Egypt bore. Phre also occurs, Gen. 41: 45, in the name of the priest at On or Heliopolis, city of the sun, Potiphera, that is, consecrated to Phre. This name is also very common on the Egyptian monuments. + I. 1. . p. 115. * Champollion, p. 257. See also Wilkinson, Egypt and Thebes, p. 5, note, and Manners and Customs, Vol. I. p. 43. CHAPTER III. THE SIGNS AND WONDERS IN EGYPT. The Connection of the Supernatural with the Natural in the Plagues of Egypt. The part of Exodus which we now proceed to examine, is of great importance for our object, first and principally in that the supernatural events described, all find a foundation in the natural phenomena of Egypt, and stand in close connection with ordinary occurrences, and also on account of the many separate references in the narrative, which show how very accurate the author's knowledge of Egypt was. As respects the first point, many have wished to make the connection of the wonders with the natural phenomena of Egypt, an argument against the Pentateuch. So indeed the English deists have done, as, for example Morgan.*-Among those more recent, v. Bohlent is conspicuous. Moses, he remarks, in order to avoid the suspicion of self deception, was at least obliged to express himself in the mildest manner possible among his contemporaries, who were so well acquainted with Egypt, if he wished to make the commonly observed natural phenomena avail as miracles. But it is perfectly clear, that these occurrences as they are related, notwithstanding their foundation in nature, always maintained their character as miracles, and consequently are sufficient to prove what they are intended to prove, and to accomplish what they did accomplish. Attempts to merge the supernatural in the natural, such as have been made by Du Bois * Comp. Lilienthal, die gute Sache der göttl. Offenb. Th. 9. S. 33. t S. 56. der Einl. * Ayme, and then by Eichhorn,t will not accomplish their design. Indeed, the unusual force in which the common exhibitions of nature here manifest themselves, and especially their rapid succession, while at other times only a single one exhibits itself with unusual intensity, as well as the fact that Eichhorn, notwithstanding all the unnatural misrepresentations in which he allowed himself, yet found material for a treatise on the wonderful year of Egypt,-if we at the same time consider these events in connection with the changing cause of them, and also take into account the exemption of the Land of Goshen,-bring us to the limits of the miraculous; for the transition to the miraculous is reached by the extraordinary in its highest gradation.‡ But we are brought into the sphere of the miraculous itself, by the circumstance that these things are introduced and performed by Moses, that they cease at his request, and a part of them at a time fixed upon by Pharaoh himself. Hence the connection with natural phenomena can be made to avail against the Pentateuch, only when, going beyond the present narrative, we limit what in it can be explained by the natural occurrences of Egypt, and establish the presumption, that the remainder belongs to fiction. But this assumption wants all foundation. Not until the historical character of the Pentateuch is disproved, is it necessary, in conformity with * Notice sur le séjour des Hebreux en Égypte, Description, t. viii. 1 In his Treatise, De Aegypti Anno mirabili. + Even Du Bois Aymé in a manner acknowledges this. He says, Descr. t. 8. p. 110: “Que l'on écarte donc de la description des plaies d'Égypte les exaggerations poétiques permises à celui, qui decrit avec transport les phénomènes qui ont servi à la délivrance de son peuple, et l' on verra tout prestige s'évanouir; mais le concours de tant d'événemens extraordinaires quoique naturels, et leur résultat sur le cour, endurci du Pharaon, pourrout néanmoins être considérés comme une preuve frappante de la protection divine." § See Ex. 8: 5 seq. the natural philosophy of Egypt, to separate truth and fiction from one another, although it is then better to transfer the whole narrative to the province of mythology, since the natural in it acquires its significance merely through its connection with the supernatural. And so soon as it shall be separated, we can no longer comprehend how Moses could make use of this to prove anything, and how it produced the consequences ascribed to it. But, that the natural is in itself a presumption against the supernatural, and thus furnishes an argument against the historical veracity of the Pentateuch, cannot be affirmed. If we exert ourselves to bring forward any one tenable reason for this, we shall soon see that we have allowed an entirely arbitrary assumption. On the contrary, that the connection with the natural serves for confirmation to the supernatural, is clear from the following reasons. Since we have shown that the natural ground-work of these wonderful events cannot be made an argument against the Pentateuch, it belongs to us also to point out how far it is in favor of the same. Here comes into view, first, the fitness of this character of the miracle to the end designed. The su pernatural presents generally in the Scriptures, no violent opposition to the natural, but rather unites in a friendly alliance with it. This follows from the most intimate relation in which natural events also stand to God. The endeavor to isolate the miraculous can aid only impiety. But there was here a particular reason also for uniting the supernatural as closely as possible with the natural. The object to which all of these occurrences were directed, according to chap. 8: 20, was to show that Jehovah is Lord in the midst of the land. Well-grounded proof of this could not have been produced by bringing suddenly upon Egypt a succession of strange terrors. From these it would only have followed that Jehovah had received a momentary and external power over Egypt. On the contrary, if the events which annually return were |