100 
died after a reign of 10 years, and was succeeded by another king, Beon, who 
reigned 44 years. After him, Apachuas reigned 3b years. Then Apophis.” 
So that the city was actually known by the name of Avaris 99 years before 
the time of Apophis ; and if that be correct, it altogether breaks down 
the argument of Mr. Savile that it was named Avaris because possessed 
by the Hebrews in the time of Apophis. Then in the 18th section of the 
paper, while I quite' agree with Mr. Savile in maintaining that the famine 
chronicled as having taken place in the reign of Sesertesen I. was not the 
famine spoken of by Moses in Genesis, I cannot but call attention to Mr. 
Savile’s strange mistake in arguing from Scripture that the famine was not 
in Egypt. So far from the statement being correct that Moses declared 
that there was famine in all lands but Egypt, the very opposite is the case. 
In the 41st chapter of Genesis, verses 30 and 31, we are told : — 
“ And there shall arise after them seven years of famine ; and all the 
plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt ; and the famine shall con- 
sume the land ; and the plenty shall not be known in the land by reason of 
that famine following ; for it shall be very grievous.” 
It is true that there was plenty of corn in Egypt, but it does not at all follow 
that there were plenty of crops, and that harvesting was going on. The 
famine was in Egypt just as much as anywhere else, but that does not bear 
on the main argument ; it is simply an error of reasoning on the part of Mr. 
Savile. Then, in the 27th section of the paper, there is another weak point 
connected with the interesting picture of brickmaking referred to by Mr. 
Savile. His argument is, that one of the most positive proofs of the exist- 
ence of Israel in Egypt in the reign of Thothmes III. is that some of the 
captives in that picture bear the unmistakable features of the Hebrew race. 
But there are two replies to that argument. The first is, that if the picture 
had been one of the Hebrews working in bondage, I apprehend that all 
the captives would have borne that ethnological portrait ; and the second 
is, that the captives so represented might as well have been intended for 
Chaldeans as for Hebrews. Having shown these weak points in Mr. Savile’s 
paper, I will now endeavour to raise some independent arguments of my 
own against the view propounded in it, that Joseph fell in with the shepherd 
kings. If he did, he must have fallen in with the Semitic race ; but I think 
that all the Scripture testimony that we have goes to show that the 
Pharaoh with whom Joseph had to do was not of the Semitic, but of the 
pure Egyptian or Hamitic race. In the first place, all the names mentioned 
in the narrative are pure Egyptian, and not Semitic. Potiphar, or Petphra, 
is not a Semitic but a pure Egyptian name, bearing no analogy to the 
names that most probably would have existed about the court during the 
time of the shepherd kings. Then, in the 41st chapter of Genesis, verse 45, 
there is this strong argument : — 
“ And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zephnath-paaneah ; and he gave him 
to wife Asenath, the daughter of Poti-pherah, priest of On.” 
K 2 
