SOME

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED;

AND OTHER

PROOFS PRODUCE D:

Wherein is farther fhewn,

That the ARABIAN SHEPHERDS were distinct from the ISRAELITES, and prior to them.

N

history has been esteemed more difficult to settle than that of the Arabian Paftors: which difficulty has arifen from not confidering that they were a twofold race, and essentially different in almost every circumstance. When the Arabians came into Egypt, they are faid to have been 240000 in number: the Ifraelites were but seventy persons. The former took poffeffion by force: the latter were invited; and had all they poffeffed granted to them. The one held the people in flavery: the others were theirfelves inslaved. The Arabians were driven out of the land: the Ifraelites were not fuffered to depart. Notwithstanding this, Jofephus among the antients, and 'Witfius, Perizonius and others among the moderns,

1 Hermanni Witfii Ægyptiaca. Lib. 3. Cap. 3. He imagines that the first Shepherds were Abraham and his retinue; and the fons of Ifrael the second.

moderns, think that this history relates to the Ifraelites only. Manetho, who is the first that speaks of these Shepherds, and from whom Africanus, Eufebius, and Syncellus have chiefly borrowed what they produce, plainly distinguishes between them. Jofephus, and those of his opinion, have no other way to fet this evidence aside, but by fuppofing that Manetho had an utter averfion to the Jews, and would not mention any thing in their favour: a fuppofition fo ill grounded, that it is wonderful how perfons of any reflection could advance it. For what is it that Manetho can be fuppofed to have fuppreffed out of prejudice? If we were to allow that the Ifraelites were the Shepherds who got the fovereignty in Egypt; what would be their history? They were in the land of Canaan during a famine, and in very great diftrefs: but were invited into Egypt, where their wants were supplied: and they were permitted to settle in the very best of the country, and had part of it affigned them for a poffeffion. As they increased in number, they forgot their obligations: and, rifing in arms against their benefactors, subdued them by force; and for a great while ruled tyrannically over them; burning their temples and cities, and overturning their altars; till, by a reverfe of fortune, they were defeated in their turn, and at laft driven. out of the country. What is there in all this detail, that Manetho could fupprefs out of ill will to the Jews? There is not a circumstance, but an enemy would enlarge upon and aggravate. All this fcandal Jofephus would gladly entail upon the memory of his forefathers; merely for this empty gratification, that it might be faid, that they once bore rule in Egypt ; 2 ότι κατα την χωραν αυτών εδυναςευσαν ἡμων οι προγονοι. If this history had really related to the Ifraelites, I do not fee what could have hindered Manetho from prefixing their name to it: I am fure he could not omit it out of prejudice. The Royal Shepherds were certainly a distinct people from the If

• Contra Apion. Lib. 1. §. 25.

rael

raelites; and likewise prior in time. This I have already shewn: and it will farther appear from the disgust the Egyptians had entertained for people of that profeffion, when the Ifraelites went first into that country. Every shepherd " was an abomination to the Egyptians." It was not a bare diflike, but an abhorrence; which must have arisen in great measure from the cruel treatment the Egyptians had experienced. Some indeed, among whom is Theodoret, imagine that their antipathy was owing to the different customs of the two nations: the Shepherds occupation being to rear and tend sheep, which they facrificed and fed on; while the Egyptians abstained from this food, and held it in abhorrence. But this custom of abftinence, if ever it exifted, was never univerfal. The people of Thebes three hundred and fifty miles above Delta held it criminal to facrifice, and perhaps, to taste the flesh of sheep: but others made no scruple to feed on it, particularly the Mendefians; and they on the other hand abstained from goats. 3 Όσοι μεν δη Διος Θηβαιε ίδρυνται ίρον, η νομε τα Θηβαίες εισι, ουτοι μεν νυν παντες οίων απεχομενοι, αιγας θυσι. — Όσοι δη τε Μενδητος εκτηνται ἱρον, η νομε τι Μενδησις εισι, δυτοι δε αίγων απεXoμevo, oï's ever. This custom therefore was local and partial, and could never be the cause of universal abhorrence. It is contrary to the account given us by Diodorus Siculus; who fpeaks of the fertility of their meadows, and the manner of their managing them; together with the numerous flocks, of which they were poffeffed. He mentions that "their sheep "were wonderfully fruitful; that they had young twice in a

year, and were fhorn as often in that season." 4°0, de 4O. xegr

χερ

σευειν εάσαντες την επικεκλυσμενην χώραν, και τοις ποιμνίοις ανέντες μηλόβοτον, δια το πληθος της νομης, δις τεκοντα και δις αποκαρεντα τα #goСаτа nagπɣνтαι. And, in another place, defcribing the early ages and the customs of the first inhabitants of the

3 Herod. Lib. 2. Cap. 42.

4 Lib. 1. pag. 23.

coun

country, he says that "they fed upon fome fort of cattle, "and cloathed themselves with their skins:" 5μows de nai των βοσκηματων ένια σαρκοφαγείν, και ταις δοραις των κατεσθιομένων Eσ INTI Xenodai. What they fed upon, and what they abstained водить from, is pretty plain from the latter part: they fed upon oxen and sheep, whose skins are best adapted for cloathing : and they abstained from horses and camels, which are included in the term Boonμaтa. It is moreover expreffly contrary to the account of Mofes: where Pharaoh, hearing that the fons of Ifrael were fhepherds, not only permits them to bring their flocks and herds; but appoints them to take care of his own cattle, wherein his flocks were undoubtedly included. And, to put the matter out of all doubt, the flocks of the Egyptians, as well as their herds, are exprefly mentioned by Mofes; where he speaks of the exchange that the people made for corn in the height of the famine. 7" And Jofeph said, "Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if " money fail. And they brought their cattle to Jofeph: and

6

Jofeph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the "FLOCKS, and for the cattle of the herds and for the affes." To what purpose could they rear so many sheep, if they never fed upon them? Grotius fuppofes for their wool. But is it poffible that the wool only, or the milk, would answer the trouble and expence of keeping such numerous flocks, that each year more than doubled their number? And can any account be given of what was done with the fupernumeraries? For, without thinning them, the land, fruitful as it was and extensive, would not have fufficed for pafturage. The skins they could not have to make use of, till the animal died: and they then must have been of no fervice. Yet the Egyptians are fuppofed to have made use of their skins. Without all doubt

s Lib. 1. pag. 28.

6 Gen. 47. v. 6.

• Gen. 47. v. 16.

doubt they fed upon sheep, as all other nations did. It cannot be fuppofed, if the Egyptians difliked fheep and abhorred fhepherds, that they would have been troubled with either of them. Diodorus, indeed, fays that sheep were held facred on account of their great utility: but it does not follow that the Egyptians never fed upon them. It is hard to pronounce what animals were not facred among this people; and as difficult to determine what was the consequence of their being efteemed fo. The words of Diodorus are as follow. 8 Τα δε προβατα δις μεν τίκτειν, και τοις ερίοις την σκεπην άμα και την ευ σχημοσύνην περιποιειν τῳ δὲ γαλακτι και τῳ τυρῳ τροφας παρεχεσθαι προσηνεις ἅμα και δαψιλεις. On thefe accounts they were held facred. But this was common to animals that they fed upon.9 Male cattle were facred to Epaphus. 1 Β8ς τις ερσενας το Επαφε είναι νομίζεσι: yet they were univerfally eaten : 2 Τες μεν νυν καθαρες βες τες ερσίνας, και τες μοσχος δι πάντες Αιγυπτιοι θνεσι. And, as it was an heartening food, the foldiers were allowed two pounds a day: 3 τετοισι δ' ων ταδε παρεξ των αρερεων αλλα εδίδοτο επ' ήμερη έκας οπτε σιτε ςαθμος πεντε μνεαι ἑκαςῳ, κρεων βοεων δυο μνεαι, οινε τέσσερες αρυστηρες. So that this antipathy could not proceed from any difference in diet; for no difference is difcernable. Care must therefore be taken, that we do not confound what Herodotus fays about things facrificed by the Egyptians, with the things that were ordinarily eaten by them: for there were many fpecies of food that they never offered to the gods, which they made no scruple to feed upon; otherwise they must have starved. We are told by Alexander Sardus 4 that they originally used no other offer

8 Lib. 1. pag. 54.

9 Τίνα μεν γαρ των ζωων άπαντες κοινῇ τιμωσιν Αιγύπτιοι, καθαπερ των πεζών μεν τρία, βον, κύνα, αίλερον. Strab. Vol. 2. pag. 1166.

1 Herodot. Lib. 2. Cap. 38.

2 Ibid. Lib. 2. Cap. 41.

3 Ibid. Lib. 2. Cap. 168.

4 Lib. 3. Cap. 15.

A a