115 
with statements in profane history in relation to Israel in Egypt, and to 
Israel and Egypt. There is no question, according to the statements of 
historians, that at the period when Abram went down into Egypt, that 
country was in a high state of civilization ; and that coincides with the state- 
ment in Genesis that Abram was hospitably received by Pharaoh and 
entertained by him, and that he received from him large presents, and 
among them were sheep and asses and camels and slaves. Mr. Savile 
has dealt very properly here with the asses and sheep, but another 
objection has been raised to the presentation to Abram by Pharaoh of 
camels, on the ground that at that time the camel was not known in Egypt. 
Now apart from the fact that Egypt was surrounded by deserts, and that the 
camel is exceedingly useful for desert travelling, and has obtained the name 
of “ the ship of the desert,” so that it is not at all probable that the Egyp- 
tians would know nothing of camels, it is a fact that the head and neck 
of the camel have been traced on the monuments of Egypt in many 
instances. Then as to the fact of Abram receiving slaves from Pharaoh. 
We know that slavery was a state of the most cruel bondage in almost 
every case where it existed during the early period, but it was not a state 
of the most cruel bondage in Egypt. We find, according to the statement of 
Diodorus in a quotation given from that author in Dr. Kitto’s fragments 
°f Egyptian laws, that it was punishable by death for any man to put to 
death his slave. Compare that with the simple fact that when Joseph falls 
under the displeasure of Potiphar, he is not at once put to death, but is sent 
to prison ; and that even the king himself, when he suspects two of his ser- 
vants, the chief butler and the chief baker, does not deal with them in a 
summary way and order them to execution, but sends them to prison ; and 
it seems that there was some sort of trial before even the king could put them 
to death, and that that investigation led to the release of Joseph. Here is 
a striking coincidence between the statements of Diodorus and the facts 
recorded in Genesis. Now we come to Joseph as viceroy, and we are told 
that the priests did not sell their land to him when the people did. They 
had no necessity to sell their land, because they had a portion allowed 
them by the king of Egypt. Now take up Herodotus, and you will find that 
the priests were entirely saved from all domestic cares and concerns, and 
they had not merely the consecrated bread but a daily allowance from the 
king and an abundance of geese. There is distinct harmony between Hero- 
dotus and Genesis. Then take the fact of the idolatry instituted by the 
Israelites after their delivery from Egypt. They set up a calf or steer, 
which is what the Hebrew word means, at Sinai, and they worshipped it. 
That was evidently an imitation of Apis, the Ox-god of the Egyptians. 
Look at the feast which follows the worship. There is eating and drinking 
and dancing, and, what has often perplexed commentators, the people were 
stripped naked. In the Egyptian festivals the people cast awav their gar- 
ments, and in this case there is the distinct fact mentioned that the people 
were naked, and Moses deals with them as having cast away their clothes. 
It does not mean that they were literally naked, but, according to the Egyp- 
